6109
1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
2
3 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT
4 Volume 26
5
6 Including List of Participants
7
8
9
10 Hearing
11
12 Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project
13
14 Presiding:
15 Gerard Lecuyer, Chair
16 Kathi Kinew
17 Harvey Nepinak
18 Robert Mayer
19 Terry Sargeant
20
21 Tuesday, May 25, 2004
22 Sheraton Hotel
23 161 Donald Street
24 Winnipeg, Manitoba
25
6110
1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
2
3 Clean Environment Commission:
4 Gerard Lecuyer Chairman
5 Terry Sargeant Member
6 Harvey Nepinak Member
7 Kathi Avery Kinew Member
8 Doug Abra Counsel to Commission
9 Rory Grewar Staff
10 CEC Advisors:
11 Mel Falk
12 Dave Farlinger
13 Jack Scriven
14 Jim Sandison
15 Jean McClellan
16 Brent McLean
17 Kyla Gibson
18
19 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation:
20 Chief Jerry Primrose
21 Elvis Thomas
22 Campbell MacInnes
23 Valerie Matthews Lemieux
24
25
6111
1
2 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
3
4 Manitoba Conservation:
5 Larry Strachan
6 Trent Hreno
7
8 Manitoba Hydro/NCN:
9 Doug Bedford, Counsel
10 Bob Adkins, Counsel
11 Marvin Shaffer
12 Ed Wojczynski
13 Ken Adams
14 Carolyn Wray
15 Ron Mazur
16 Lloyd Kuczek
17 Cam Osler
18 Stuart Davies
19 David Hicks
20 George Rempel
21 David Cormie
22 Alex Fleming
23 Marvin Shaffer
24 Blair McMahon
25
6112
1
2
3 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
4
5 CASIL
6
7 Merrell Ann Phare
8 Leslie Dysart
9 William Dysart
10 Lisa Hardess
11 Neil Duboff
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6113
1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS
2
3 Number Page
4 CASIL 1006: Presentation slides CEC Wuskwatim Hearing
5 May 2004 CASIL 6176
6 CASIL 1007: Presentation of William Dysart, President
7 South Indian Lake Commercial Fishermen's
8 Association 6177
9 CASIL 1008: Presentation Slides: Existing Water
10 Regime Operations 6207
11 CASIL 1009: Various data
12 documents presented by CASIL 6207
13 MH/NCN-1039: Letter from Michael W. Dumas to
14 Brian Wood, August 11, 2003 Re:
15 consultation meetings 6318
16 CASIL-1010: Report prepared
17 for CASIL by Duncan Associates Ltd.,
18 dated May, 2004 6318
19 CASIL-1011: Agreement made between the
20 community of South Indian
21 Lake, Manitoba Hydro Electric Board
22 and the Province of Manitoba 6319
23
24
25
6114
1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS
2 EXHIBIT NO. PAGE
3 MH/NCN 1040: Letter, May 19th, 2004 from MH/NCN
4 to David Chartrand, MMF, Re:
5 Metis Consultation 6371
6 DRSIL 1006: Excerpt from Hansard,
7 Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6384
8 MH/NCN 1041: Response to Manitoba Clean
9 Environment Commission's request
10 for comparison of
11 the agreement re new relationship,
12 2002, between Government of Quebec
13 and the Cree of Quebec, and
14 Wuskwatim project understandings,
15 2003, between Nisichawayasihk Cree
16 Nation and Manitoba Hydro,
17 May 14, 2004 6424
18 CNF 1024: Response to undertaking 61,
19 Manufacturing Commercial Scale
20 Wind Turbines in Canada, by
21 Canadian Wind Energy Association 6425
22 CNF 1025: Response to undertaking 60,
23 The Economics of Wind Energy
24 from American Wind
25 Energy Association 6425
6115
1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS
2 EXHIBIT NO. PAGE
3
4 MMF 1001: Summary of Results from
5 Wuskwatim Workshops 6426
6
7 MMF 1002: Response to CEC
8 interrogatories, CEC/MMF/EIS
9 interrogatories number 1 to 7 6426
10
11 TREE/RCM 1009: Response to undertaking
12 84, Wuskwatim Advancement of
13 Adjustment Basic Forecast 6427
14
15 TREE/RCM 1010: Response to undertaking 85,
16 Wuskwatim Advancement with Adjusted
17 Basic Forecast with 400 Gigawatt
18 Hour Revision 6427
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6116
1
2 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS
3
4 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE
5
6
7 CASIL-86: Provide CASIL's position
8 re condition 1 of AFP varying condition 1 of CRD 6238
9 CASIL-87: Inquire whether John Duncan
10 considered Mr. Cormie's evidence 6287
11 CASIL-88: Inquire whether John Duncan had
12 reference to the responses of all the
13 interrogatories 6287
14 CASIL-89: Provide description and/or CVs
15 of Duncan Associates Ltd. members 6319
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6117
1 TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2004
2 Upon commencing at 9:10 a.m.
3
4 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Elder Dysart
5 is here and we will ask him to come forward for the
6 opening prayer.
7 ELDER DYSART: Thank you. I see that
8 we're having a little rain here. When we left, we
9 had a good day from Thompson, it was sunny. And we
10 felt good getting here to be with you people again.
11 I hope we have a good day and everybody talks
12 peacefully. Hopefully that we'll do our job well.
13 Let's ask the Lord for a little help. Let us pray.
14
15 (PRAYER)
16
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Elder Dysart.
18 We welcome you again for this 26th day of hearings on
19 the Wuskwatim projects. Hopefully everybody found
20 their place and found their way here. Hopefully we
21 don't have too many waiting for this to start at the
22 Radisson Hotel. I will ask, to begin, Mr. Grewar to
23 tell us about a few changes in regards to the
24 schedule for today.
25 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6118
1 There's just been some slight changes to the
2 schedule. We will proceed as originally intended
3 with the Community Association of South Indian Lake
4 who will proceed now through the entire morning. And
5 then we will shift to hearing cross-examination of
6 the EIS by the Displaced Residents of South Indian
7 Lake. We thought that would be this morning but now
8 it seems that CASIL would prefer to complete their
9 presentation this morning. So then we'll move to
10 Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake immediately
11 after the lunch break and then the afternoon will
12 conclude with MKO making a presentation.
13 What has changed is O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree
14 Nation are unavailable to make a presentation today.
15 We'll be in touch with them through the course of the
16 day to try and determine when we may be able to
17 reschedule them later in the week. So at this point,
18 it will be the Community Association of South Indian
19 Lake to come forward to make a presentation.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
21 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman. Just while
22 they are assembling, if I might mention, there are a
23 number of undertakings that Hydro is anxious to enter
24 into the record. We will do that perhaps just before
25 the lunch break. And there are also some exhibits,
6119
1 some undertakings that were filed by other
2 organizations, the MMF and also the Canadian Nature
3 Federation that we also should enter into the record
4 perhaps immediately before or after the lunch break.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Grewar.
6 Ladies, when you are ready, you may introduce
7 yourself and Mr. Grewar will proceed with the
8 swearing in.
9 MR. GREWAR: We're just missing one
10 presenter.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: That's fine.
12 MR. GREWAR: Is this your entire group
13 assembled now?
14 MR. L. DYSART: We're waiting for one
15 more.
16 MR. GREWAR: There is a presentation
17 document which I understand is just en route just
18 from an office nearby so we will distribute that as
19 soon as it is available. In the meantime, if I can
20 ask you each to state your names for the record.
21 MS. HARDESS: Lisa Hardess.
22 MR. W. DYSART: William Dysart.
23 MR. L. DYSART: Leslie Dysart.
24 MS. PHARE: Merrell-Ann Phare.
25 MR. DUBOFF: Neil Duboff.
6120
1 MR. GREWAR: Are you all aware that in
2 Manitoba, it is an offence to knowingly mislead this
3 Commission?
4 CASIL: Yes.
5 MR. GREWAR: Having answered in the
6 affirmative, do you all promise to tell only the
7 truth in proceedings before this Commission?
8 CASIL: Yes.
9 MR. GREWAR: Thank you very much.
10
11 (LISA HARDESS: SWORN)
12 (WILLIAM DYSART: SWORN)
13 (LESLIE DYSART: SWORN)
14 (MERRELL-ANN PHARE: SWORN)
15 (NEIL DUBOFF: SWORN)
16
17 MR. DYSART: Good morning. My name is
18 Leslie Dysart. First of all, I'd like to thank the
19 Clean Environment Commission for allowing me and the
20 Community Association of South Indian Lake to make a
21 presentation to you here today.
22 One aspect of our presentation that we
23 won't be delving into thoroughly as we probably can't
24 do the story of South Indian Lake justice. There is
25 one aspect of South Indian Lake, the Commission I
6121
1 think is aware of some aspects. We will be touching
2 on it, on certain areas of our presentation but not
3 focusing on it. I just wanted the Commission to be
4 aware of this. There is a whole other story of South
5 Indian Lake out there which I think you are aware of
6 some portions of. I'm just going to lead right into
7 my presentation.
8 I am here to present to you today because
9 of the Community of South Indian Lake has experienced
10 negative impacts of Manitoba Hydro's development for
11 the past three decades and we believe that the
12 Wuskwatim project may continue to degrade our
13 environment and quality of life. Manitoba Hydro
14 chose not to include Southern Indian Lake which
15 includes the environment of my community and the
16 environmental assessment of Wuskwatim Generation
17 Project. Our environment was not studied and our
18 people were not adequately or meaningfully consulted
19 or considered.
20 We will also argue that Hydro also has a
21 requirement morally, legally and scientifically to
22 talk to South Indian Lake through best practices for
23 cumulative effects assessment.
24 Hydro did involve Nisichawayasihk Cree
25 Nation in its environmental impact assessment and as
6122
1 a co-proponent which has led to the existing
2 Agreement in Principle for Wuskwatim. But they
3 missed out a large component of the actual nation in
4 the negotiations and consultations they had. For
5 example, not all residents of the area were included
6 in the vote that led to this agreement. Only NCN
7 members were eligible. A large portion of the NCN
8 members in South Indian Lake and in excess of 80 per
9 cent of these residents voted against the Agreement
10 in Principle. Other resource users such as the Metis
11 and other First Nations were excluded from the vote,
12 although they live in the community and may be
13 impacted by the proposed projects.
14 No attempts were made to fully gather the
15 traditional knowledge or input from South Indian Lake
16 community members or study the potential effects of
17 South Indian Lake resource users within the project
18 area.
19 Given our exclusion in the process,
20 therefore, participation in the Clean Environmental
21 Commission hearings as a funded intervenor was
22 considered the only available option to become
23 involved in the assessment of the Wuskwatim project.
24 Southern Indian Lake is the northern
25 reservoir for everything that happens in regards to
6123
1 Manitoba Hydro's northern operations in future
2 development on the Churchill, Burntwood and Nelson
3 River systems. This environment is a fragile one
4 that has experienced many changes that have altered
5 the ecosystem in our social and economic systems.
6 Our landscape is very susceptible to change. We are
7 worried that any further effect to our lake or the
8 operation of the CRD will affect these systems beyond
9 their capacity to survive and continue to adversely
10 affect the lives of my brothers and sisters and the
11 children of South Indian Lake.
12 The CRD and Augmented Flow Program, all
13 the control structures and the generating stations
14 are all part of one interconnected system. The CRD
15 did not happen 30 years ago, it started 30 years ago.
16 The effects are ongoing daily, weekly, monthly,
17 yearly, decade after decade. We understand that you
18 have ruled that this panel will not review past
19 projects. While we appreciate that you made this
20 decision, nevertheless, the CRD and the AFP were not
21 even included as an existing operation of a project
22 in the Wuskwatim Project Cumulative Effects
23 Assessment. There have been no comprehensive
24 environmental reviews of the CRD or Augmented Flow
25 Program at any time.
6124
1 Our people have been negatively affected
2 by the CRD. The CRD created and affects the
3 environment which our people are now living with.
4 This is why there are unique licences and conditions
5 that govern Manitoba Hydro operations, especially
6 regarding Southern Indian lake because everything
7 they do to our lake impacts the lives of my people.
8 For example, each of the Notigi Control
9 Structure, Missi Control Structure, Churchill River
10 Diversion, Augmented Flow Program and all other
11 generating stations on the Lower Nelson have defined
12 licence terms that determine their operations. These
13 terms are not guidelines, they are rules to govern
14 operations.
15 I will explain for our presentation today
16 there are certain things we did not review or
17 research. First, the CEC participant funding that we
18 received was directed at ascertaining South Indian
19 Lake community views only. So we will discuss our
20 findings later in this presentation. In particular,
21 we did not do a scientific review of the EIS as
22 resources were not provided for that purpose. We
23 chose to review cumulative effects on aquatic
24 environment only as these appear to be the closest
25 link to our community members. We have reviewed all
6125
1 relevant EIS chapters.
2 Manitoba Hydro has referenced a Duncan &
3 Associates study. This is an engineering review of
4 the Manitoba Hydro/Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation EIS
5 and we received the final report just days ago. As
6 we stated in the interrogatory process, this report
7 was not generated for the CEC process but we have
8 agreed to submit it to the CEC. Manitoba Hydro has
9 already received this report. If the CEC wants a
10 copy, we can undertake to provide it.
11 We will cover four areas of concern. One
12 is the credibility of Manitoba Hydro. We will
13 discuss the fact that in the history of Manitoba
14 Hydro operations, they have been wrong about impacts
15 before and could be wrong again.
16 Cumulative effects review of EIS. Our
17 conclusion is that the cumulative effects assessment
18 is inadequate.
19 Community impacts. Our conclusion after
20 interviewing residents of South Indian Lake, we and
21 South Indian Lake members believe that the Wuskwatim
22 will further exacerbate these effects and decrease
23 the quality of life of our community.
24 The water regime. Our conclusion is that
25 there is insufficient justification for Manitoba
6126
1 Hydro's assumption that there will be no changes to
2 the water regime and we think it is wrong that this
3 decision itself was not subject to public review.
4 This is South Indian Lake where we live.
5 As you can tell, this is a beautiful massive lake.
6 What this photo doesn't show you is the effect that
7 the CRD has on this lake and its people. What you
8 don't see is the floating debris and shorelines
9 falling into the water. South Indian Lake and Lake
10 Winnipeg are the reservoirs for the dams that provide
11 most of the power for Manitoba and even other parts
12 of North America.
13 South Indian Lake is intended to be the
14 reservoir that will feed the Wuskwatim Generation
15 Station. The Wuskwatim project EIS Cumulative
16 Effects Assessment did not include South Indian Lake
17 or its effect on the people who live along the shores
18 of the lake.
19 We will review the following six aspects
20 of cumulative effects assessment. We will review
21 best practices in cumulative effects assessment. We
22 will show how there has been an inappropriate choice
23 of baseline. We will review cumulative effects and
24 water quality, focusing on VECs and geographic extent
25 of the assessment. We will review total suspended
6127
1 solids in the construction and operation phases. We
2 will show you why we believe there has been a flawed
3 and uncertain determination of significance.
4 We will close this portion of the
5 presentation with some general comments about the EIS
6 and what we believe are flaws in the EIS approach and
7 the approach to the Manitoba Hydro First Nation
8 partnership.
9 Cumulative effects assessments are
10 generally done over a larger geographic area than a
11 standard assessment. This is acknowledged as
12 international best practices as to the use of VECs to
13 define this area.
14 The cumulative effects assessment generic
15 framework created for the Canadian Arctic Research
16 Council states that the geographic scope for
17 cumulative effects assessments are generally larger
18 than those for assessing direct project effects and
19 that one should choose spatial assessment scales
20 based on the maximum detectable zone of influence for
21 the project, the extent of the effects on the VECs.
22 The CEAA Practitioner's Guide also emphasis
23 the need for a larger spatial scale. Many EIAs have
24 focused on the local scale in which only the
25 footprint or areas covered by each action's
6128
1 components is considered.
2 The cumulative effects assessment further
3 enlarges the scale of the assessment to a regional
4 scale which, in our view, should include South Indian
5 Lake and the surrounding area.
6 We have focused much of our research on
7 cumulative effects. We believe that including the
8 effects of existing projects only as baseline
9 conditions in the Wuskwatim area is not consistent
10 with best practices and is also not adequate. This
11 first definition is taken from the Cumulative Effects
12 Assessment Practitioner's Guide.
13 Cumulative effects assessment is an
14 assessment of the incremental effects of an action on
15 the environment when the effects are combined with
16 those from other past, existing and future actions.
17 The project administration team EIS guidelines gave a
18 similar message. Cumulative environmental effects of
19 the Wuskwatim Generation Project that are likely to
20 result from the project in combination with other
21 projects and activities that have been or will be
22 carried out was supposed to have been studied.
23 Best practices and cumulative effects
24 assessment requires including ongoing projects in the
25 area that have the potential to impact some of the
6129
1 same components of the environment as the project
2 under review.
3 Volume 10 of the Wuskwatim Generation
4 Station EIS has a definition of cumulative effects
5 that we support. Why then was this not used to
6 determine what projects, ongoing and potential future
7 ones, would be included in the assessment?
8 The document outlines what future
9 projects were included and discusses the potential
10 future impacts of these. But where is the discussion
11 of the cumulative impacts of Wuskwatim on existing
12 facilities and projects?
13 Again, some characteristics of cumulative
14 effects assessment are outlined by the CEAA
15 Practitioners Guide. These are (1) assess effects
16 over larger regional areas. (2) Assess effects
17 during a longer period of time into the past and
18 future. (3) Consider effects on VECs due to
19 interaction with other actions, not just the effects
20 of a single action under review. Include other past,
21 existing and future actions and evaluate significance
22 in consideration of other than just local direct
23 effects.
24 The current baseline represents how the
25 environment has absorbed the effects of the CRD but
6130
1 does not allow for a cumulative effects assessment of
2 those effects. The Churchill River Diversion is an
3 existing ongoing project and its effects are not
4 included.
5 If you can think back to the definitions
6 prepared by the Canadian Environmental Assessment
7 Agency and Canadian Arctic Research Council that we
8 just reviewed, you will recall that the focus is
9 clearly on effects.
10 Another standard best practice of
11 cumulative effects assessment is the use of valued
12 ecosystem components to narrow the scope of the
13 assessment. This is stated in the Practitioner's
14 Guide and is used to guide the cumulative effects
15 assessment for the Wuskwatim Generation Station
16 Environmental Impact Assessment.
17 And Volume 5 of the Wuskwatim Generation
18 Project EIS on aquatic environment, water quality is
19 defined as a VEC. It is noted, and I quote,
20 "In scoping meetings held to develop a
21 work plan to conduct the environmental
22 studies for the project, NCN
23 identified water as a critical
24 component of the aquatic environment
25 on which all life depends."
6131
1 The linkages related to water quality are
2 discussed including a change in water levels that
3 result in increased erosion which can temporarily
4 degrade the water quality at a site by increased
5 suspended sediment levels. This can result in an
6 inferior habitat for algae and zoe-plankton resulting
7 in fewer or smaller forage fish which reduces the
8 food source for the bigger fish, which reduces the
9 food source for people and the economic resource for
10 fishers.
11 The identification of water quality is a
12 VEC for the assessment means that water quality is a
13 VEC in the cumulative effects assessment. The area
14 that is studied for the cumulative effects assessment
15 should be large enough to include the potential
16 effects of the VEC. The VEC is used to define the
17 geographic parameters. In many cases, this results
18 in cumulative effects assessment that is larger than
19 the standard assessment and can create a regional
20 study area.
21 Volume 10 of the cumulative effects
22 framework discusses this briefly in relation to
23 wildlife because it was recognized that wildlife
24 moves from place to place. Water also moves from
25 place to place. So the cumulative effects assessment
6132
1 should have looked at water quality as it relates to
2 the larger regional area as well.
3 Given that cumulative effects best
4 practices focused on the scope the assessment on
5 VECs, one of which is water quality in this case,
6 these standard best practices would require a
7 regional study area that included Southern Indian
8 Lake. Despite theoretical discussions in the EIS
9 documents that are consistent with this, the actual
10 cumulative effects assessment did not follow these
11 standards.
12 Again, I quote from the CEAA
13 Practitioner's Guide on how cumulative effects occur.
14 Cumulative effects can occur when too
15 much is happening within too small an area over too
16 brief a period of time. A threshold may be exceeded
17 and the environment may not be able to recover to
18 pre-disturbance conditions.
19 Cumulative effects can occur in a variety
20 of ways including physical transport such as
21 sediment. I would like to talk about sediment.
22 When we look at the water parameter total
23 suspended solids, it is clear that it continues to be
24 affected by the CRD. As Mr. Remple told us during
25 the hearings on April 13th, rivers transport sediment
6133
1 and increase in the rate of erosion on Southern
2 Indian Lake could result in some sediment transfer
3 downstream of the lake. Wuskwatim Lake currently
4 receives 315,000 tons per year of sediment from
5 upstream. Southern Indian Lake contributes some
6 portion of this and certainly more of it during the
7 early years of the CRD. If erosion rates on South
8 Indian Lake were to increase at all, presumably the
9 result in increase in sedimentation would transfer
10 downstream via the rivers to Wuskwatim Lake. Because
11 of the limit of the geographic scope of the EIS, this
12 potential consequence to Wuskwatim from South Indian
13 Lake was not considered.
14 Increased sediment in lakes and rivers is
15 therefore an ongoing effect of the CRD. It is also a
16 known future effect of the Wuskwatim project.
17 According to the EIS, activities of the
18 construction periods will cause the most
19 sedimentation in (inaudible) the Burntwood River will
20 experience the greatest increase in TSS levels.
21 However, the EIS states that TSS from numerous
22 sources will be managed by attempting to limit the
23 net increase to 25 milligrams per litre. This is the
24 Manitoba Water Quality Standards Objectives and
25 Guidelines allowable increase for a one-day averaging
6134
1 period. As someone who has experienced the inability
2 of Manitoba Hydro to fully implement its past
3 commitments and understand the effects of its
4 actions, intentions are not good enough.
5 Here is an example of a cumulative effect
6 that we believe has been missed. It is possible that
7 the water levels on Southern Indian Lake will be kept
8 at their highest allowable limit for a longer period
9 of time to ensure that the Wuskwatim Generation
10 Station construction conditions are as dry as
11 possible.
12 As our lake fluctuates and the water
13 level is generally higher, more erosion would occur.
14 This would result in increased erosion and higher
15 sediment levels in Southern Indian Lake than is
16 normal. This additional sediment could be
17 transported downstream, resulting in a cumulative
18 effect on TSS on the Burntwood River. This also begs
19 the need for an increased regional analysis because
20 of the potential economic effects of increased TSS on
21 the users of the fisheries of South Indian Lake.
22 This effect is not assessed or included
23 in mitigation planning. By excluding the operation
24 of the CRD and the cumulative effects assessment,
25 this impact of Wuskwatim was excluded. And
6135
1 therefore, the potential cumulative effects remain
2 unknown and therefore mitigation strategies have not
3 been developed.
4 We know the Wuskwatim Generation Station
5 will cause erosion and that sediment will enter
6 Wuskwatim Lake during the operation of this project.
7 The following quote is a judgment of significance for
8 TSS on reach one, Wuskwatim Lake, for the operation
9 of the project.
10 "Overall, effects to the nearshore
11 zone of Wuskwatim Lake main during the
12 open water season would on average
13 exceed Manitoba water quality
14 standards objective guidelines for TSS
15 for the protection of aquatic life in
16 the first five years, with smaller
17 effects thereafter. This
18 project-related increase in TSS will
19 affect all water usages, but it is
20 short-term."
21 Now all throughout the EIS, the Manitoba
22 Water Quality Standards Objectives and Guidelines are
23 used to represent the environmental threshold of
24 water parameters. These allow for both an acute and
25 chronic increase in TSS. According to the EIS, the
6136
1 increase in TSS in the nearshore zone of Wuskwatim
2 Lake where fish feed and spawn will exceed the
3 chronic allowable levels for five years. We do not
4 actually know if this five year impact is
5 insignificant or devastating to the fish and
6 therefore the fishery. And yet an assessment of
7 Manitoba Hydro has determined that this is not
8 significant.
9 The EIS states that overall increases in
10 TSS and related parameters are expected to have a
11 negative and not significant, meaning short-term,
12 moderate and site specific to local effect on the use
13 of water for drinking, suitability for aquatic life
14 and aesthetics.
15 This determination is not consistent with
16 the methods laid out for the assessment. Despite the
17 choice to use the Manitoba Water Quality Standards
18 Objections and Guidelines as the environmental
19 threshold, they are considered in some situations but
20 not others. This is an inconsistent application of
21 methods with no explanation and is not an acceptable
22 and scientific study.
23 Given the methods outlined in the EIS and
24 the predicted levels of TSS, the judgment of not
25 significant is hard to believe. This is poor science
6137
1 and a reflection of the arbitrary nature of judgments
2 of significance.
3 This example with TSS represents the
4 arbitrary nature of judgment in this EIS. Even on a
5 parameter that is critical to water quality, a VEC is
6 predicted to exceed the chosen environmental
7 threshold for five years, the resulting judgment is
8 not significant.
9 Were the people who have to live with the
10 results of the Wuskwatim project part of this
11 determination? The public involvement program does
12 not indicate South Indian Lake or any community
13 involvement at this point in the environmental
14 assessment process. To further emphasize the
15 questionable nature of the significant decisions we
16 note, what is short-term and moderate negative
17 effects to an aquatic habitat and the species it
18 supports which are already stressed by the CRD? What
19 does negative effects as site specific to local mean
20 when the local is Wuskwatim Lake and the lake is only
21 as healthy as its water? What is significant? Is
22 this an opinion, not a scientific assessment? And it
23 was determined without community input.
24 Looking specifically at TSS and the
25 operations of the Wuskwatim project, it is clear that
6138
1 the CRD could result in cumulative effects on the
2 water quality of Wuskwatim Lake. As I mentioned,
3 sediment is constantly being transported out of
4 Southern Indian Lake. It is possible that the
5 erosion rates on Southern Indian Lake could change as
6 a result of modified flows which have not been
7 studied. The consequence of debris on our lake is a
8 good example. The debris currently along the
9 shoreline may prevent some erosion but also causes
10 many problems for the community such as reaching the
11 shoreline from boats and preventing shoreline
12 vegetation growth that could be the habitat for
13 species.
14 As a mitigation measure of the CRD,
15 Manitoba Hydro may undertake a debris management
16 program. If this ever occurs, the removal of debris
17 could result in a period of increased erosion and
18 sedimentation in Wuskwatim Lake.
19 Given that the EIS predicts that TSS
20 levels will exceed the chronic allowable levels set
21 by the Manitoba Water Quality Guidelines during the
22 first five years of operation on Wuskwatim Lake, it
23 could potentially be catastrophic to push this water
24 parameter even further. Could increase sediment
25 imported from the removal of upstream debris have
6139
1 this result? We don't know the answer to this
2 question because this potential cumulative effect was
3 not studied.
4 I would like to remind you about the
5 concept of threshold. The environment that we are
6 talking about is not a healthy one to start out with.
7 The CART (ph) document notes that the current state
8 of the environment is particularly important when
9 predicting future impacts. Impacts on already
10 disturbed systems may be much more significant than
11 those on a system which has seen little disturbance.
12 How would Wuskwatim Lake respond to even
13 higher levels of total suspended solids, especially
14 when the water will already be experiencing levels
15 that exceed the Manitoba Water Quality Standards
16 Objectives and Guidelines. And this will happen for
17 the first five years of operation of the generation
18 station. This has not been studied. What will be
19 the effect of this exceedance on the environment?
20 This incomplete cumulative effects
21 assessment results in missed opportunities to avoid
22 or mitigate these effects. One simple planning
23 decision that could result from recognition of the
24 potential cumulative effect just discussed could be
25 ensure that periods of heavy sediment deposition
6140
1 occur at different times. Debris clearing activities
2 and Wuskwatim construction periods do not overlap.
3 Because this effect was not considered, you and the
4 rest of the public cannot consider, understand and
5 evaluate these options.
6 The fact is that potential cumulative
7 effects of increased sedimentation in Southern Indian
8 Lake as part of the CRD follow-up activities on the
9 water quality of Wuskwatim Lake, which is a VEC, is
10 unknown. Why? Because the CRD, as a project, that
11 includes Southern Indian Lake was excluded from the
12 Wuskwatim cumulative effects assessment. This is
13 just one example of missed cumulative effects which
14 requires an assessment and has been missed and raises
15 a doubt about the validity of the EIS.
16 What else has been missed? The decision
17 by the proponent to reinterpret known best practices
18 and exclude the effects of ongoing existing project
19 is clearly faulty.
20 The method that appears to have been used
21 to determine significance throughout the EIS does not
22 conform with best practices. The EIS does not
23 outline an assessment process that includes a
24 preliminary assessment of the impacts of the project
25 or the activities that could cause effects on water
6141
1 quality during construction. For example, there is
2 no discussion of what those effects might be. How
3 can the alternatives be looked at or mitigation
4 planned for the necessary activities without this
5 step? Best practices require this process. (1)
6 Determine environmental baseline. (2) Conduct impact
7 analysis. (3) Determine mitigation measures. (4)
8 Determine the risk, success, failure of mitigation
9 measures. (5) Determine the residual effects given
10 varying risks of the success or failure of mitigation
11 measures. (6) Determine significance of all the
12 ranges of residual effects.
13 We believe that the likelihood of
14 implementing mitigation and the known ability of the
15 mitigation measures must be a factor when determining
16 the final effect on the environment. Merely stating,
17 and I repeat a quote from the EIS, that measures as
18 well as standard practices will be taken with the
19 intent of limiting the increase of TSS does not
20 provide assurances that this mitigation measure is
21 guaranteed to protect the water quality. In fact,
22 we have no idea of whether or not these measures will
23 work. What is the risk associated with the proposed
24 mitigation measures and what is going to happen if
25 those measures don't work?
6142
1 The Environmental Impact Assessment
2 process has been developed by the Government of
3 Canada and Manitoba more than just to regulate, it is
4 also a planning tool. The overall goal of the impact
5 assessment is to ensure that the projects being
6 reviewed support sustainable development so that
7 future generations are assured of healthy, natural
8 and human resources. This means, for example, that
9 even in areas where humans do not currently have
10 permanent settlements, that project effects on the
11 viability of the water, the earth and the air in that
12 location matter.
13 There is a move internationally to ensure
14 that environmental impact assessments is linked more
15 closely to sustainability of the life that is
16 affected by the environment and the environment
17 itself.
18 We do not believe that the Environmental
19 Impact Statement or the Wuskwatim Project are being
20 proposed with a view to sustainability. In
21 particular, the interpretation and application of
22 significance that is used in the EIS is contrary to
23 the broader goals of Environmental Impact Assessment.
24 We will be showing you today that the way
25 that Manitoba Hydro has dealt with the CRD with
6143
1 respect to South Indian Lake has been significant
2 notwithstanding that they have said that the CRD is
3 not relevant. The credibility of Manitoba Hydro is
4 again being questioned with regard to how they have
5 dealt with the CRD in this hearing process and in
6 their EIS.
7 This quote from the generation station
8 EIS Aquatic Volume number 5 and is an example of why
9 we make this statement. The assessment of
10 significance was adjusted to reflect whether
11 potential effects would actually occur. For example,
12 effects to drinking water were not considered for the
13 reaches of the river where there is currently no
14 resource use. This is an arbitrary and subjective
15 decision. It does not take into account that
16 traditional practices of Aboriginal peoples and the
17 likelihood that when people are away from the
18 community hunting or trapping in the bush that they
19 may drink or cook with the water from anywhere in the
20 area. It does not consider the traditional knowledge
21 and the value of water is something on which all life
22 depends. And of course, it does not support
23 sustainability and the protection of this water for
24 the future.
25 The need for both regulatory permits and
6144
1 public permission to ensure successful projects as
2 best practice is becoming increasingly clear and was
3 a topic of discussion at the recent International
4 Association of Impact Assessment conference in
5 Vancouver. It appears that Manitoba Hydro worked
6 hard with NCN members who are also residents of
7 Nelson House to put together these reports. This
8 would be expected given that these two parties are
9 co-proponents of the Wuskwatim Project.
10 But NCN members do not only live in
11 Nelson House. 90 per cent of residents in the
12 Community of South Indian Lake are NCN members.
13 Although we are in the process of separating, we are
14 still currently NCN members. Leaving the public
15 participation and traditional knowledge gathering
16 activities to be implemented at the community level
17 is a good idea. But given the political nature of
18 the current situation, leaving this implementation
19 primarily in the hands of Nelson House residents was
20 not the right thing to do. Manitoba Hydro has risked
21 the overall success of this collaboration with First
22 Nations and cannot say that they have successfully
23 partnered with the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation.
24 In addition to the regulatory licence and
25 permits that are required and that are linked to the
6145
1 Environmental Impact Assessment in Manitoba,
2 proponents need to work together with the public and
3 local communities in order to receive a social
4 licence to operate.
5 During our cross-examination of Manitoba
6 Hydro and NCN, we asked questions in other areas. I
7 don't want the Commission to think that we are not
8 still concerned about these issues but in the
9 interest of time, I will only state them as continued
10 concerns.
11 The significance of the effect of the
12 Wuskwatim project on the biodiversity in and of
13 itself is unknown. The effects of the project on the
14 aquatic habitat, for example, were not studied let
15 alone the effects on aquatic biodiversity. This is
16 also the case with TSS levels. What is the effect on
17 the biodiversity.
18 There is no judgment on what is
19 significant or not significant that relates to these
20 issues at all. The effects of climate change were
21 not studied because apparently there is not yet
22 enough information. But there is some information
23 and some models available for use and choosing to
24 ignore these sources and this issue is not
25 acceptable. Using existing models means applying the
6146
1 current state of science and this is what should have
2 been done even if there are limitations. Limitations
3 in models are not a reason to completely avoid using
4 a model such as the Global Climate Model. As a
5 result, there's no assessment and no judgment.
6 The nature of ceremony to mitigate the
7 social effects at Taskinigup Falls is unknown to
8 South Indian Lake and not reviewed by South Indian
9 Lake members. The effect of the loss of Taskinigup
10 Falls on the biophysical environment is also not
11 assessed. This is a loss of more than just a
12 cultural loss, it is a loss of the physical form in
13 the environment forever.
14 CASIL, with the assistance of the
15 Canadian Indigenous Environmental Resources,
16 conducted community research to ensure that our
17 presentation include both literature data and the
18 community knowledge.
19 I've just been informed that a copy of
20 the report on community research, we'll be providing
21 it for you.
22 Our community research focused on
23 community concerns regarding the aquatic environment.
24 To include traditional and community knowledge, we
25 selected a representative sample of resource users in
6147
1 the community for extended interviews and focus
2 groups that included open-ended questions. Questions
3 were translated into Cree when necessary.
4 Our questions focused on water and fish
5 and dealt with the environment after the CRD. We
6 also questioned about what they thought life would be
7 like after Wuskwatim dam. These questions focused on
8 water, fish, animals, land and plants and community
9 life. A copy of the questionnaire was provided with
10 our submission in February and have included the
11 results of the interviews of the report we will
12 provide today.
13 We selected a focus group based upon two
14 criteria; one, whether or not there were resource
15 users or people such as elders who had intimate
16 knowledge of Hydro projects before, during and after
17 previous projects. We selected people from a wide
18 age range between the ages of 25 to 76 years old.
19 Twenty people participated in the focus discussion
20 with between 10 to 60 years of fishing experience,
21 between 12 to 50 years of hunting experience and six
22 to 60 years of trapping experience.
23 The following slides summarized the
24 findings of our interviews. The responses to our
25 questions have been grouped into three categories,
6148
1 water, hunting, trapping and fishing, and health and
2 safety. For each area, I'll give you a summary of
3 what was said about the existing environment and then
4 a summary of the participants' concerns about the
5 Wuskwatim dam.
6 The concerns raised by community members
7 relating to existing environment as it relates to
8 water are water fluctuations with tragic impacts.
9 Increased debris in water and along shoreline, moose,
10 caribou hunting, the loss of beaches, increased
11 sedimentation or silt which affects the fish and the
12 drinking water, the loss of islands, physical islands
13 being eroded away or just floating away on any given
14 day which also affects travel and the fishing
15 environment.
16 Some concerns that people raised were, in
17 regards to water, will there be an increase in
18 surface water levels? Will there be an increase in
19 fluctuations? Will there be further loss of
20 shoreline? Will there be further decrease in water
21 quality?
22 This is the reality of South Indian Lake.
23 This is our existing environment created by the CRD.
24 This didn't happen 30 years ago, it started 30 years
25 and these pictures are current from last summer.
6149
1 Some interview findings in regards to
2 fishing, hunting and trapping. For the Community of
3 South Indian Lake, these traditional practices are
4 still very strong. One term I'd like to use in
5 describing South Indian Lake is that approximately 80
6 per cent of our members and households still practice
7 these traditional practices as compared to other
8 communities where it might be as low as 20 per cent.
9 Fishing, hunting and trapping are still main sources
10 of income for the residents of South Indian Lake.
11 Some concerns were that deterioration in
12 rivers and streams due to fluctuations, loss of
13 spawning grounds, debris, loss of fish eggs due to
14 the exposure during low spring water levels, loss of
15 fish species, decrease in population size of fish
16 species, decrease in flesh quality of fish, the
17 virtual disappearance of fur-bearing animals which
18 affects the trappers, flooding of low-lying areas
19 destroyed food sources for moose and animals have to
20 move elsewhere, nesting areas lost and waterfowl no
21 longer stopping on the lake. Their food source is
22 gone or will be gone. Mercury content of fish. This
23 is an area of great concern for the community
24 residents which ends up being loss of food source for
25 the people, their fears of getting sick.
6150
1 This next slide are concerns related to
2 Wuskwatim. The commercial fishing industry is the
3 main source of income for many of the residents for
4 South Indian Lake. They have concern about further
5 decrease in the quantity and quality of the fish,
6 further loss of spawning grounds, the further
7 deterioration of hunting and trapping, decreases in
8 quality and quantity of the furs, the difficulties
9 in -- well, the increases in travel to hunt and trap
10 due to degradation and the destruction of our
11 environment, increases in the danger due to poor ice
12 conditions for travel.
13 One example I can give you is the water
14 in front of our community is open 12 months of the
15 year irregardless of temperature. It was never like
16 that before. This is a direct effect of the
17 operations of Manitoba Hydro.
18 Earlier I talked about sediment and
19 suspended solids. I don't know if you can see it
20 clearly from the picture but this is a gill net used,
21 a standard gill net used for commercial fishing and
22 used for domestic -- fishing purposes for domestic
23 consumption. Usually this is almost virtually
24 invisible to the naked eye. The gill net is made of
25 very fine nylon. This net was left less than 24
6151
1 hours, just overnight, and you can see the amount of
2 sediment that's collected on the net itself. It's
3 almost like cord overnight. If you pulled the net
4 out of the water, it's just like mud coming -- well,
5 it's a combination. Part of this is also algae
6 collecting.
7 Some concerns that were brought forward
8 in regards to health and safety regarding our
9 existing environment. Our people have difficulties
10 landing on the shore due to instability of the
11 shoreline. Area of concern is like when storms are
12 approaching, you need to find areas where you can get
13 off, get off and get protection from the storm.
14 These areas are rare. I mean almost the whole
15 shoreline of South Indian Lake is just a mass of
16 falling, eroded clay and a tangle of debris.
17 An outbreak of Shigella a few years ago
18 was blamed on the poor water quality, drawing water
19 right out of South Indian Lake which has been
20 impacted by the CRD and Hydro operations. Another
21 area of concern is the children that swim in the lake
22 are developing sores. Increased travel risks due to
23 flooded portages. Extremely low water levels. And
24 there's always a debris problem. Animal death due to
25 water fluctuations. For example, beaver, who I think
6152
1 everybody knows constructs their houses for a certain
2 level of water. But when the draw-down is four feet,
3 they freeze out during the winter. Thin ice and open
4 water in winter due to high currents created by dam
5 operations due to ice shelves and high currents due
6 to change in the freeze-up.
7 There is no normal year in South Indian
8 as far as in relation to freeze-up and ice
9 conditions. There is no standard anymore. You just
10 never know what the condition of the ice you're
11 travelling on is going to be. There is also the loss
12 of medicines and food due to the loss of trees and
13 shrubs.
14 Some of the health and safety concerns
15 brought forward in regards to the Wuskwatim Dam were
16 I believe there will be increased safety risks due to
17 increase in debris, increased travel risk due to ice
18 shelving, thin ice, fluctuations in water levels,
19 the potential loss of areas used for berry picking
20 and loss of sacred sites.
21 The following are just some examples of
22 the questions that are asked during the interview.
23 The question, Do you think the project will affect
24 how you use your traditional lands for hunting,
25 trapping, fishing, berry picking, et cetera?
6153
1 Ninety-two per cent of the participants said yes.
2 Some comments were depends on what they do. Water
3 levels. "We won't be able to go hunting. I would
4 have to go further inland to inland lakes. Once
5 again, we will see the erosion destroy our
6 traditional lands."
7 Question. Do you think the project will
8 affect how you use places that are sacred to the
9 community? Seventy-seven per cent of the people
10 interviewed said yes. "It will affect our community.
11 One burial area is already gone. The lands will wash
12 away, a lot will be lost."
13 I just want to add a comment here. In my
14 discussions with archaeologists, there is over 500
15 archaeological sites identified in the community as
16 we know them today. But there's more. I mean nine
17 out of 10 areas you stop on South Indian Lake, you
18 will find artifacts. I know this myself because I
19 have an interest in that area and I did work one
20 summer in '91 I think with an archaeologist.
21 The area traditionally was such a
22 beautiful area and had an abundance of resources.
23 Our people are all over the lake and reside at
24 various areas. Like one person made, one burial
25 ground is already gone. We don't know how many of
6154
1 our burial grounds are gone. They are not documented
2 sites. It's safe to say every year, there's probably
3 the remains of our ancestors being eroded into South
4 Indian Lake.
5 In respect to community knowledge and
6 cumulative effects. Question. Do you think that
7 these changes will affect how wildlife can use
8 Southern Indian Lake? 100 per cent of the people
9 said yes. Their comments were, "There will be no
10 feeding grounds for birds, moose, muskrat, beaver.
11 All wildlife in South Indian Lake is next to none.
12 So Wuskwatim will wipe out what we scarcely have.
13 The animals will have a hard time finding feeding
14 grounds and have to go further up to inland lakes."
15 Another question is, Do you think the
16 project will affect how you use and enjoy outside
17 activities and cultural activities, for example,
18 swimming, walking in the bush, picking berries,
19 picking up medicines, et cetera? 92 per cent of the
20 participants said yes. Their comments were, "It
21 depends on water levels. There will be fewer berries
22 and medicines. Now we cannot even set up a tent or
23 build a dock to spend weekends without it being
24 washed away. This will likely change again.
25 Medicines are sensitive to water and level change."
6155
1 Another question asked was, Do you think
2 these changes will affect how the wildlife can use
3 Southern Indian Lake? If yes, how? One answer was,
4 "Fishing has been poor since the flood and still no
5 change. Lots of nets are being wrecked by floating
6 logs and debris." Another answer was, "Yes, the
7 ecosystem will be affected up the food chain,
8 plants, animals and South Indian Lake people."
9 The community and traditional knowledge
10 that was shared by the residents of South Indian Lake
11 for this research is missing from the entire
12 Wuskwatim EIS. Their concerns on the effects of the
13 aquatic environment of South Indian Lake are not
14 evident and were not addressed in the Cumulative
15 Effects Assessment. We believe that this is
16 unacceptable based on the standard best practices
17 required for EIS and cumulative effects assessment.
18 We live among the operations of an existing project
19 and we depend on the same water as habitat for our
20 fish, for our aquatic plants, provide food for our
21 wildlife and medicines for our people. This is the
22 same water that was identified as a VEC in the
23 environmental assessment. How can the Wuskwatim
24 project be allowed to continue without a true
25 cumulative assessment of its effects?
6156
1 These are the voices of our people, the
2 project -- the people who live with the effects of
3 the past project and are concerned about potential
4 cumulative effects of the Wuskwatim project.
5 I am not here to say whether they are
6 right or wrong but this is what they believe and this
7 is what they've told us. "All the wildlife in South
8 Indian Lake is next to none. It is very scarce. So
9 the Wuskwatim will totally wipe out what we scarcely
10 have. The moose will have to move further inland.
11 Feeding grounds will move inland. There will be more
12 habitat change. I went moose hunting and shot a
13 floating log. I thought it was a moose swimming
14 across.
15 I mean some people might find this
16 humorous but myself, like we've gone moose hunting.
17 And you think you see a moose swimming in the water
18 and you go after it and it ends up being a log. Or
19 when you're cruising along the shorelines looking for
20 moose, the uprooted root systems and land that come
21 up off the ground are similar to what the moose
22 shapes are. So it's a current situation.
23 Some more quotes are, "The lake has been
24 destroyed already. It is just going to get worse.
25 My biggest worry is that even if the lake is affected
6157
1 just a little bit, it will be just like after the
2 first flood and the fish will disappear. Will the
3 muskrats and beaver disappear and impact trapping
4 again? I have concerns about our children in the
5 future. Will they be able to survive without our
6 culture and livelihood? Our way of life will be
7 gone."
8 We have heard from various people in the
9 community and shared some of the information on the
10 current environment and their predictions about the
11 cumulative effects that will be caused by the
12 Wuskwatim dam. I have shared a summary of that
13 information with you. Manitoba Hydro and NCN have
14 told us in this hearing that there will be no effects
15 on Southern Indian Lake. They have also told us that
16 they have a successful public involvement program
17 with NCN.
18 Eighty-four per cent of the people who
19 participated in the interviews are NCN Band members.
20 Their obvious concerns about the cumulative effects
21 of the Wuskwatim project on our lake and the way of
22 life makes me question the success of the public
23 involvement program. If in fact the proponents is
24 correct and there will be no effects on Southern
25 Indian Lake, either the people did not get a chance
6158
1 to hear this message or they don't believe it.
2 Either way, this is not a successful public process
3 or a collaboration of the Nisichawayasihk Cree
4 Nation.
5 My wife's grandfather, Mr. Angus Bonner,
6 said that there was a community meeting held in 1968
7 by Manitoba Hydro within our community. And the fear
8 in our community is exactly the same except then our
9 grandparents were right and Manitoba Hydro was wrong.
10 That's a quote taken from 1977.
11 The people of South Indian Lake made the
12 sacrifice for the people of Manitoba then. Our
13 people were let down. Let's not let them down again.
14 The people of South Indian Lake believe
15 that the Wuskwatim Generation Project will result in
16 adverse cumulative effects. Manitoba Hydro and NCN
17 say that there has been an adequate public
18 consultation of the EIS. But 90 per cent of South
19 Indian Lake residents are NCN members. Eighty-four
20 per cent of our interview participants are NCN
21 members. And clearly, these South Indian Lake people
22 were not included in the Environmental Impact
23 Assessment process.
24 If in fact the Wuskwatim project will not
25 have an effect on South Indian Lake and these people
6159
1 were adequately consulted, then presumably they
2 wouldn't have expressed such concerns about
3 Wuskwatim.
4 It is clear that the people of South
5 Indian Lake have profound discomfort with and the
6 mistrust of this project. They don't understand it
7 and they fear it. Regardless of the science and
8 engineering that you have conducted and that the
9 Duncan & Associates has conducted, there are
10 Manitobans who believe that their environment will be
11 worse off because of this project.
12 Manitoba Hydro has a duty to ensure that
13 this discomfort and fear is mitigated and minimized
14 and they have breached this duty by not properly
15 explaining this project. Manitoba Hydro made a
16 mistake in believing NCN speaks for South Indian
17 Lake.
18 The Churchill River Diversion is more
19 than just the resulting baseline environment in the
20 Wuskwatim project area. It caused adverse
21 environmental effects that in turn resulted in
22 adverse social, cultural, spiritual and economic
23 adverse effects. These effects were excluded from
24 the cumulative effects assessment.
25 There is the potential for missing
6160
1 cumulative effects of the Wuskwatim project when the
2 CRD is excluded. The levels of total suspended
3 solids at given times during the first five years of
4 the project when the project itself pushes this
5 parameter beyond the limits set by the Manitoba Water
6 Quality Standards Objectives and Guidelines is a good
7 example of missed cumulative effect. This causes
8 missed opportunities for impact mitigation and
9 follow-up at planning.
10 This is particularly worrisome because
11 the environmental area is already disturbed and
12 vulnerable. Effects that are missed could
13 potentially be significantly adversed but we don't
14 know this because there is no assessment of this.
15 We have four recommendations related to
16 cumulative effects. One, Manitoba Hydro must conduct
17 a thorough cumulative effects assessment prior to the
18 construction of the Wuskwatim dam consistent with
19 best practices endorsed by CEAA including the effects
20 of the CRD and including the region affected by the
21 ongoing CRD Augmented Flow Program projects. Two,
22 communities in the geographic area of the cumulative
23 effects assessment must participate in the entire
24 cumulative effects assessment process in a meaningful
25 and fully funded way. There must be a clear
6161
1 community based identification of potential effects
2 of the project and the definition and evaluation of
3 significance.
4 Three, the operation of the Wuskwatim Dam
5 should be determined with input from the affected
6 communities and stakeholders through the creation of
7 a community advisory committee.
8 Four, all proponents must fulfil their
9 obligations by law to conduct meaningful public
10 participation.
11 Being told that people do not want to
12 meet or do not feel able to meet in good faith should
13 not be the end of the discussion. It is the duty of
14 the proponents to solicit input and to ask for better
15 ways to do this when their attempts fail. Not the
16 responsibility of the affected communities to
17 intervene in a public hearing to finally be heard.
18 This concludes the first portion of my
19 presentation. My father, William Dysart, which is
20 the president of South Indian Lake Fisherman's
21 Association, our resource group, will be making a
22 presentation of approximately half an hour.
23 At the discretion of the Commission, we
24 could break after his presentation and then I'll move
25 on to the conclusion of our presentation.
6162
1 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, I missed that
2 sentence?
3 MR. L. DYSART: We're suggesting William
4 Dysart conclude his presentation and then we'll take
5 a break.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's correct, good.
7 MR. W. DYSART: Thank you. I'm going to
8 introduce myself as William Dysart, Southern Indian
9 Lake Fishermen's president and I have been, since
10 1972, off and on as a director and the president in
11 the past say 30 years, 32 years.
12 I have a little presentation to make,
13 maybe five, six pages more or less to the Commission
14 and the general public. Even though I think that
15 they have heard it many times in the past, but
16 nevertheless I was asked to come and do this by my
17 membership to more or less give a wake-up call to the
18 ones that are concerned.
19 I do respect all people that take this at
20 heart but I do wish that they take it further.
21 My name is William Dysart and I am a
22 resident of the Community of South Indian Lake and
23 have been all my life of 57 years. I am and have
24 been a commercial fisherman on Southern Indian Lake
25 all my life and I am also president of the Southern
6163
1 Indian Lake Commercial Fishermen's Association Inc.
2 which represents about 180 commercial fishers
3 operating within South Indian Lake Resource area. I
4 am further a commercial trapper and again have
5 trapped within South Indian Lake trapline zone all my
6 life.
7 As a life long resident and resource user
8 within South Indian Lake area, I have witnessed many
9 changes over the years. However, the most profound
10 change started in the early 1970s with the coming of
11 Manitoba Hydro and the implementation of the
12 Churchill River Diversion Project, CRD. Prior to the
13 implementation of the CRD, we were promised a number
14 of things by Manitoba Government and Manitoba Hydro.
15 First of all, we were advised that the entire
16 community would have to be moved from the west side
17 of a channel between South Indian Lake and South Bay
18 to the east side of the same channel.
19 This was not a move -- was a move that
20 the community was not in favour of for a number of
21 reasons. First of all, this was our traditional home
22 with access to the outside world year-round without
23 bridges or winter roads crossing waters. Secondly,
24 it was unclear to the community how water levels and
25 flows would change around the community once the CRD
6164
1 was implemented.
2 In the end, the community was forced to
3 move with a promise of new homes, new roads, new
4 community infrastructure, sewer and water and an
5 overall better way of life.
6 I'll just add on a little bit on that
7 last sentence. Sure it was done to a certain extent.
8 But yet today, you can walk to our community and you
9 think construction just started in terms of the
10 conditions of our roads. And it was started since
11 1973.
12 What we got is not exactly what was
13 promised. We got substandard houses, limited new
14 infrastructure, roads that can hardly be classified
15 as roads. Sewer and water that consists of holding
16 tanks and water tanks loosely serviced by trucks, and
17 most important, not a better way of life but rather a
18 much worse, lost and losing way of life particularly
19 in the area of resource use.
20 As I mentioned before, I had been a
21 resource user in the areas of commercial fishing,
22 commercial trapping and domestic fishing on Southern
23 Indian Lake as well as lands and water adjacent to
24 Southern Indian Lake all my life. With the coming of
25 the CRD in mid 1970, we had become well aware that
6165
1 the water levels on Southern Indian Lake will be
2 raised by approximately 10 feet, creating a huge
3 reservoir of water that will be diverted down to the
4 Rat River system through Nelson House into the
5 Burntwood River system and eventually into the Nelson
6 House system to feed power dams downstream of Split
7 Lake on Southern Indian Lake. We were very aware
8 that the CRD would bring massive shoreline erosions,
9 massive amounts of floating debris in our water shed,
10 massive amounts of sedimentation and water as a
11 result of shoreline erosion and increased and
12 reversed water flows which, when all combined, would
13 have a very negative effect on our traditional
14 trapping, commercial and domestic fisheries.
15 Little discussion between Manitoba or
16 Manitoba Hydro was ever had with the resource users
17 on these negative effects. However, our local
18 knowledge told us of what was to occur in the future.
19 I'm not exactly saying that things were
20 not studied but what I guess what I'm pointing out,
21 that they were studied and there was effects to occur
22 on those studies that were not moved forward for
23 people to take -- to make use of towards, whatever
24 you might call it, compensation or whatever. It
25 wasn't fully implemented into it.
6166
1 Immediately following the implementation
2 of the CRD, our local knowledge of the effects proved
3 to be true. As the water rose, debris was removed
4 from the previously stable shorelines, massive
5 erosion and high water sedimentation was occurring,
6 reversed water flows created open water situations
7 during the winter never before experienced, and
8 fishing grounds and fish quality were changing and
9 they are still constantly changing, whatever is left.
10 In the late 1970s, after the CRD have
11 been in the operation for a number of years, both
12 domestic and commercial fishers were learning to live
13 with the new environment of Southern Indian Lake, as
14 difficult as it was. We were becoming aware of how
15 Manitoba Hydro was managing water levels and flows of
16 Southern Indian Lake and adjusted our activities
17 accordingly.
18 We also became aware of the interim
19 licence that was issued by Manitoba to govern
20 Manitoba Hydro on Southern Indian Lake. This interim
21 licence, still in effect today, clearly spells out
22 the method of operation of Manitoba Hydro in the area
23 of water level fluctuations on Southern Indian Lake
24 and flows through both Missi Falls and Notigi. We
25 studied the terms of this interim licence and came to
6167
1 our own conclusions about the future of the fisheries
2 on Southern Indian Lake.
3 We believed that the conditions of the
4 interim licence would be the method of operation of
5 Manitoba Hydro for the future. And in discussions
6 with Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro in early 1980s were
7 never advised otherwise. And in view of what we
8 thought we knew, the commercial fishers of Southern
9 Indian Lake signed a settlement agreement with
10 Manitoba Hydro in 1982 relative to the adverse
11 effects of the CRD on the commercial fishery on
12 Southern Indian Lake. In the discussions to accept a
13 settlement agreement for adverse effects was the
14 understanding from the interim licence.
15 That water level fluctuations of Southern
16 Indian Lake would not vary by more than 24 inches
17 over a 12 month period. Again, applying local
18 knowledge was the belief that over time, Southern
19 Indian Lake would return to a new state of nature
20 providing the 24 inch maximum water level
21 fluctuations over 12 months operating period was
22 strictly adhered to by Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro.
23 Applying local knowledge once again, we commercial
24 fishers reasoned that a 24 inch water level variation
25 over 12 months can and has occurred in a state of
6168
1 nature on all lakes in cases of extreme weather
2 events, yet only has a very short-term impact on any
3 commercial fishery.
4 What happened on Southern Indian Lake
5 following the '92 Agreement -- excuse me, 1982
6 Settlement Agreement between Manitoba and Manitoba
7 Hydro in the Southern Indian Lake Commercial
8 Fishermen is that the rules got changed. Unknown to
9 commercial fishers, in the mid 1980s, an additional
10 licence in addition to the interim licence was issued
11 to Manitoba Hydro by Manitoba Government that was
12 thereby increasing the water level fluctuations on
13 Southern Indian Lake from 24 inches over a 12 month
14 period to as much as 60 inches over a 12 month
15 operating period.
16 The result of this change in rules, known
17 as the Augmented Flow Program, has been the steady
18 decline in the productivity of the commercial and
19 domestic fisheries to a point today where neither is
20 economically feasible. Our local knowledge has told
21 us that the change from the interim licence to the
22 additional augmented flow licence, I would call it,
23 has been mass fish habitat destruction, destruction
24 of fish spawning habitat through increased erosion
25 and resulting extreme water sedimentation,
6169
1 difficulty travelling to and from the fishing
2 grounds, increased operating costs, ever changing
3 fishing grounds.
4 As a commercial trapper, the change in
5 rules had a similar impact in terms of destruction to
6 traplines not only adjacent to Southern Indian Lake
7 but all the traplines which must be accessed from the
8 Southern Indian Lake as the constant and continual
9 erosion in shorelines of Southern Indian Lake makes
10 access from Southern Indian Lake to all traplines
11 almost impossible due to high shoreline banks created
12 through and as much result of the change.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: A little slower, please.
14 MR. W. DYSART: Yes, I'll rephrase that
15 paragraph. You see, a lot of these problems that
16 occur surround just the lake itself, but nobody has
17 taken any consideration. The adjacent areas and the
18 traplines, for instance -- I'll use, for example,
19 Missi Falls, below Missi Falls. There are a lot of
20 traplines in that area within our zone. And from the
21 Missi Falls structure dam, I travel through that area
22 almost every winter but this winter in particular, I
23 clocked the distance the effect of the Churchill
24 River had done. It didn't flood it, it took the
25 water away 30 miles into inland.
6170
1 I feel sorry for the trapper who has to
2 travel through there let alone the effects of the
3 wild animals and the fish that were either dried up
4 in the shoreline or got hung up in the willows
5 somewhere.
6 And I'll also comment again on that
7 particular area. When the water goes up and down,
8 when the reservoir has enough waters on the holding
9 tank, they had to release it somewhere. Generally,
10 they can probably release a lot of it downstream
11 towards Burntwood River. But if they have too much,
12 they have to make a massive release through to
13 Churchill. In the meantime, the birds and whatnot
14 was using the shoreline for either nesting, you know,
15 to try and survive. And all of a sudden, a massive
16 water comes down, they got no chance. And fishermen
17 have seen it happen. So in other words, rules and
18 regulations go down the drain at the same time.
19 My point in bringing my experiences
20 before this Commission is that we must be more
21 concerned about what we don't know or are not being
22 told rather than what we think we know. We thought
23 we knew the conditions of the interim licence
24 governing the operations of the Southern Indian Lake
25 forebay by Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro in the early
6171
1 1980s. What we did not know and were not told was
2 the fact that a licence, in addition to the interim
3 licence known as the Augmented Flow Licence, would be
4 issued with little or no consultation with the
5 Communities of South Indian Lake. And no
6 consultation with the commercial resource users in
7 the community.
8 Furthermore, to my knowledge, no
9 Environmental Impact Assessment was ever carried out
10 prior to the issuing of the Augmented Flow Licence
11 and has not been carried out to this day. In my
12 mind, the destruction of the environment of Southern
13 Indian Lake as a result of the Augmented Flow Licence
14 has been much more worse than the destruction of the
15 environment created through the initial CRD and the
16 governing interim licence. Under the interim
17 licence, there was the end of the environmental
18 damage. Under the Augmented Flow Licence, there was
19 no end to the environmental damage.
20 From my past experiences, I now wish to
21 address the subject of this Commission, and that
22 being the proposed Wuskwatim Project. Once again, we
23 at South Indian Lake are being told that the proposed
24 Wuskwatim Project will have no effect on Southern
25 Indian Lake and that the operations of the Southern
6172
1 Indian Lake as reservoir to feed Wuskwatim would not
2 change from the past.
3 Again, from my past experiences, what I
4 am being told does not worry me. It's what I am not
5 being told.
6 Once Wuskwatim is built and in operation,
7 will the rules change when someone within Manitoba
8 and Manitoba Hydro determines that capability of
9 power generation through Wuskwatim is most greater
10 than originally planned today? If so, where will the
11 water flow from to feed it? The answer is simple.
12 It must come from my environment, which is the
13 Southern Indian Lake reservoir. What impact will
14 this have on my environment and the environment of
15 the people I represent?
16 In conclusion, I must tell this
17 Commission I am not against progress. However, my
18 experiences tell me that progress can come at a very
19 high price to the environment as well as the peoples
20 living within the environment. Wuskwatim has already
21 come at a very high price to myself and the peoples
22 of this Community of Southern Indian Lake.
23 Flow tests by Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro
24 have determined that significant flows can be
25 diverted from Southern Indian Lake down the Rat River
6173
1 system to Wuskwatim to make the project feasible.
2 What this Commission must understand is
3 that in order for Wuskwatim to be feasible, my
4 environment and the environment of the people I
5 represent must continue to be -- continue to be
6 destroyed as long as the Augmented Flow Licence is
7 allowed to stand with no Environmental Impact
8 Assessment on the environment and the peoples of
9 Southern Indian Lake.
10 In my past studies in the last couple of
11 years as this hearing proceeds, I picked up a few
12 little points. I think it's either ignored or
13 mislead. In the pamphlet of the Summary of
14 Understanding, a lot of that mislead word is used
15 towards Southern Indian Lake being mislead it says.
16 But nevertheless, that may be so. I think it's
17 misleading the whole public awareness as a whole,
18 what impacts and what answers they give.
19 One little question that it says is
20 Southern Indian Lake going to be affected? It says
21 none right away. The answer is none. But affected
22 could mean a lot of different ways. Just by talking
23 about it affects a lot of people. It can social-wise
24 for instance.
25 Also I'd like to add on to cumulative
6174
1 effects should be based on the Wuskwatim area.
2 Wuskwatim area alone shouldn't be focused only on
3 Wuskwatim. Wuskwatim project, where do you think
4 that water is coming from? Again, I think it's been
5 mentioned in the past, from the whole area. So that
6 would be an effect. So that's an effect directly
7 itself.
8 More studies have got to be done more
9 seriously and take it into hand, taken to heart.
10 Habitat rehabilitation, that's right in the programs
11 yet I've got to see the start.
12 We got involved from the start in the
13 past with Manitoba Hydro. It didn't get nowhere. It
14 meant too big of a dollar sign. Not taken into
15 consideration what that area has lost in dollar
16 signs.
17 There's good points and bad points about
18 it. Good point is, they will probably throw in a lot
19 of money into educational purposes, educational
20 programs. But nevertheless, there's a purpose behind
21 that, the purpose of where that money came from.
22 There was no consideration in the direct impact
23 people. There's no -- there's a process towards
24 programs or jobs. They have to fill out an
25 application. A lot of these direct impact people,
6175
1 they don't have a chance to get into them programs.
2 They get shafted right down the drain, right from the
3 beginning. That's an effect.
4 Now a couple of weeks ago, me and my son
5 were travelling to either Thompson or Leaf Rapids and
6 there's some areas there has -- Leo Linklater's
7 trapline, there's causeways there. And I asked him
8 do you remember the time that particular area was
9 constantly open all winter? But these last couple of
10 years, it was not constantly open. That's on behalf
11 of the water levels the way they stand right now.
12 These two years, they are dry.
13 What I'm trying to say is there was
14 constant water level elevation. We can all live
15 together but if it's not talked about or compromised,
16 we're forever going to be fighting amongst ourselves.
17 That's what's happening today.
18 I consider myself a Nelson House Band
19 member. And I also take it at heart. On this kind
20 of tables, it's a battle ground because part of them
21 of the Nelson House members are proponents with
22 Manitoba Hydro. On the other part, they are
23 disregarded. And that's the main ones that are
24 living in reservoirs.
25 Our reservoir I always call it because a
6176
1 lot of people make a living out of it in the past,
2 but they're slowly losing that. I used to call it
3 the bank. And everybody took advantage of that. But
4 it's going down the river, not from -- not
5 consideration to the people that had to put up with
6 the consequences of the loss.
7 I'd like to thank this opportunity to
8 speak to you and I would like to have the opportunity
9 to come back and talk to you some more. Thank you
10 very much.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Grewar, do
12 you want to file?
13 MR. GREWAR: I just was going to file two
14 exhibits. I believe you're probably going to call
15 for a break so I was thinking I should have caught
16 this before, the presentation document and slides of
17 Leslie Dysart as DRSIL 1006.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: CASIL.
19 MR. GREWAR: Sorry. All right. It's
20 Tuesday morning, you're correct. CASIL 1006 and then
21 the presentation by William Dysart is CASIL 1007.
22
23 (EXHIBIT CASIL 1006: Presentation Slides
24 Wuskwatim Hearing, May 2004)
25
6177
1 (EXHIBIT CASIL 1007: Presentation of
2 William Dysart, President South Indian
3 Lake Fishermen's Associaton Inc.)
4
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will
6 reconvene in 15 minutes, which is at ten to I guess.
7
8 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 10:39 A.M. and
9 RECONVENED AT 11:00 A.M.)
10
11 THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that the
12 presentation is not completed yet and that there will
13 be more statements made?
14 MR. L. DYSART: We have a whole other
15 section we'll be presenting on. The hard copy is
16 coming shortly. At the discretion of the panel, I
17 can start my presentation and when it arrives, we'll
18 distribute it.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Proceed to do that.
20 MR. L. DYSART: Just a clarification
21 again. Are you requesting the community report? Is
22 that what you're asking about or our actual
23 presentation?
24 THE CHAIRMAN: No, just carry on with
25 your presentation.
6178
1 MR. GREWAR: I believe that has to do
2 with the document that was discussed this morning,
3 Mr. Chairman, and I think CASIL is requesting
4 clarification as to what the Commission's desire
5 would be in terms of the document being filed perhaps
6 as an undertaking.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: That's correct.
8 MR. GREWAR: Just before we move on, I
9 just wanted to indicate my apologies for the errors
10 in the assignment of the exhibit numbers. I've
11 rendered CASIL 1004 and CASIL 1005 as not to be used.
12 MR. L. DYSART: I'd just like to make one
13 statement prior to jumping into the other part of our
14 presentation. This is in regards to my father's
15 perspective as a resident of South Indian Lake and as
16 a resource user.
17 While you may think that his presentation
18 is beyond your scope of terms of reference, it is
19 not. It is a crystal clear example of Manitoba
20 Hydro's approach in making promises or predictions
21 and either not following through or being just plain
22 wrong. I hope you seriously consider the information
23 that my father, Mr. Dysart, has given you. It
24 represents the reality, not the predictions. It
25 shows that Manitoba Hydro's credibility is of issue
6179
1 here, both in the past and today.
2 Having said that, I'll continue with my
3 presentation.
4 The focus of this part of our
5 presentation is the operations of the CRD and
6 Augmented Flow Program especially at our community.
7 Why is this necessary you may ask? Manitoba Hydro
8 says the operations of the CRD and water regime will
9 not change. The EIS findings are based upon this
10 critical assumption. We want the CEC to understand
11 our perspective on this assumption.
12 I'd like to give you some of the context
13 of our presentation. As you have already heard,
14 South Indian Lake community was greatly impacted by
15 the CRD. The community was forced to move to the
16 east shore of Southern Indian Lake. We were also
17 impacted by the Augmented Flow Program which created
18 the increased maximum and decreased minimum water
19 levels from the CRD levels. The effects of both the
20 CRD and the Augmented Flow Program continue to cause
21 ecosystem damage and profound community anxiety.
22 CASIL settled with Manitoba Hydro in
23 1992. This occurred two decades after the onset of
24 the CRD impacts. Our local system was already
25 extremely damaged. CASIL never accepted these
6180
1 ongoing impacts. CASIL believes it was not
2 adequately compensated for these impacts.
3 Manitoba Hydro has not provided South
4 Indian Lake with a comprehensive assessment of the
5 CRD or Augmented Flow Program impacts on the local
6 social, economic, physical and biological systems.
7 There have only been general retrospective overviews
8 at best and they have not involved South Indian Lake
9 members.
10 As I had said, and it's been brought up
11 at these hearings by Manitoba Hydro, CASIL has a
12 settlement and I will review its key terms. CASIL
13 paid for the adverse -- CASIL was paid for the
14 adverse impacts from the CRD Augmented Flow Program
15 to elevation 848 feet above sea level. The terms of
16 the settlement reiterates their approved maximum and
17 minimum water levels of South Indian Lake in the
18 schedule to the agreement, same levels as in the
19 augmented flow ministerial conditional approval.
20 Manitoba Hydro promised to operate the Augmented Flow
21 Program so as to minimize the impact on South Indian
22 Lake community residents.
23 CASIL reserved the right to object to the
24 Augmented Flow Program and licensing hearings if
25 water levels are proposed above maximum defined water
6181
1 level of 847.5 feet above sea level or to participate
2 in any hearings related to Manitoba Hydro. Why did
3 we reserve that right? Because we strongly objected
4 to all aspects of the AFP and we did not and do not
5 ever want to see water levels increase over 847.5
6 feet above sea level. CASIL wants damaging high
7 water levels to decrease.
8 I won't go over all these sections but I
9 wanted to point out to you that the PAT EIS
10 guidelines made it very clear that the operations
11 associated with Wuskwatim were to be fully
12 considered. Manitoba Hydro and NCN did this to some
13 extent but mostly what they did was assume that the
14 operation of a CRD AFP was appropriate. And since
15 they are of the opinion that it isn't going to
16 change, then they determined that they didn't need to
17 review the actual detailed operations of the CRD and
18 Augmented Flow Program.
19 We are going to provide you with the
20 information on these matters because we think you
21 need it in order to fully understand the operations
22 of Wuskwatim, which is part of your terms of
23 reference.
24 The actual guidelines require a review of
25 the following: 2.3.2 Project Scope. Consideration
6182
1 of the environmental effects of all undertakings
2 associated with operations. 5.3.3 Operation and
3 Maintenance. EIS shall describe how the proposed
4 operation of the generation station would affect the
5 existing operation regime along the river and its a
6 relationship to existing regulatory licences and
7 approvals and agreements. 6.1 Physical Environment.
8 Existing range of flows and water levels in the
9 context of the CRD and the AFP and associated water
10 level flow constraints.
11 To review briefly, there are two main
12 omissions where Manitoba Hydro/NCN didn't follow the
13 requirements of the PAT guidelines. First, the
14 guidelines say that Manitoba Hydro/NCN was supposed
15 to look at flows and the levels along the river, and
16 they haven't. They only looked at a section of the
17 river.
18 Second, as already discussed, the impacts
19 of the CRD AFP have been incorporated which actually
20 means ignored as an impact in the baseline. So there
21 is no actual review of the CRD AFP ongoing impacts.
22 On both counts, I want to make it clear that we fully
23 understand what they are saying. We just think they
24 are wrong and we will explain why as we move through
25 this presentation.
6183
1 There are some key EIS omissions in
2 regards to the PAT guidelines. The EIS doesn't fully
3 satisfy PAT guideline 2.3.2 project scope. The EIS
4 ignores the environmental effects of CRD and AFP.
5 There are undertakings associated with operations
6 even if Manitoba Hydro/NCN intends no change from
7 baseline and they are still required to study it.
8 The impacts associated with CRD and AFP remain
9 unacceptable to the community notwithstanding
10 compensation.
11 The impacts associated with ongoing
12 projects require evaluation to fully meet PAT
13 guideline requirements for this project. Manitoba
14 Hydro has avoided this but that doesn't mean it's
15 correct. We strongly disagree with their approach on
16 this.
17 Why does CASIL care about CRD AFP
18 operations? CRD AFP makes life much worse for South
19 Indian Lake members. It greatly aggravates the
20 destruction caused by the CRD. But Manitoba
21 Hydro/NCN say nothing will change with Wuskwatim.
22 CASIL can't accept a new project that absolutely
23 depends upon these past damages continuing to occur.
24 The water levels are critically important because
25 they affect the environment and our people.
6184
1 Manitoba Hydro is allowed to deviate from
2 the CRD interim licence by maintaining Southern
3 Indian Lake water levels at a maximum water level at
4 847.5 feet above sea level up from the 847 feet above
5 sea level allowed by CRD interim licence section 9,
6 a minimum absolute water level of 844 feet above sea
7 level. This is down from the 843 feet above sea
8 level allowed by the CRD interim licence, section 10.
9 The AFP sets increased allowable flow
10 rates in winter and summer out of Notigi. This
11 approval increases maximum drawdown rates of Southern
12 Indian Lake From 2 feet to 4 and a half feet per
13 year. Every year, these approvals aggravate the
14 physical, environmental and social impacts of South
15 Indian Lake from the CRD.
16 On the second bullet, the numbers are
17 transposed.
18 We may have been paid under our agreement
19 with Manitoba Hydro but we are not satisfied with the
20 amount paid and we continue to suffer the impacts
21 that continue to occur. We are forced to live with
22 it and we never said we would support any development
23 that depends upon this destruction continuing. This
24 is exactly what Manitoba Hydro is doing and asking.
25 I would like to explain the conditions of
6185
1 the AFP. Manitoba Hydro is allowed the increased
2 water levels and flows provided they ensure there is
3 no violation of the Northern Flood Agreement. This
4 is condition one. Provide monthly written reports to
5 on all aspects of operation of AFP to the Director
6 Water Branch and the Director Environmental
7 Approvals. This is condition 3. Provide monthly
8 written reports to NFA communities and other affected
9 communities on the AFP. This is condition 4. It
10 doesn't say what should be in those reports and so
11 Manitoba Hydro has decided that they would send out
12 monthly reports on certain aspects that I'll talk
13 about later. I note from the distribution list that
14 these may not be the same monthly reports that are
15 sent to the Waters Branch and Environmental Approvals
16 because these two people are not on the distribution
17 list that goes to affected communities.
18 So either they get it separately or they
19 get a different report.
20 I want to read each of the next three
21 conditions exactly as they are very important.
22 Condition 2. Manitoba Hydro agrees to terminate its
23 program and decrease diversion flow to appropriate
24 levels if at any time it appears that above-noted
25 conditions may be violated or if conditions arise
6186
1 which would present a hazard to local residents.
2 I want to point out that there is no
3 direction given to Manitoba Hydro as how to determine
4 hazards. We have never even been asked about this
5 and we have never been informed of any risk
6 management criteria being used nor has there ever
7 been a report that we ever see that contained any
8 reference to even the contemplation of this criteria.
9 Earlier you have heard about the
10 hazardous ice conditions that arise as a result of
11 the AFP. At least that's what we think is the cause.
12 But we have never had any report or notice given to
13 us by Manitoba Hydro that explain any of these
14 conditions nor has the program ever been terminated.
15 Condition five. Manitoba Hydro will
16 fully mitigate any effects of the altered levels and
17 flows. CASIL is not aware of any articulation as to
18 what the effects of the altered flows are. We were
19 paid for increased water levels without ever
20 articulating or understanding fully what those
21 impacts were. There has been no release or
22 compensation regarding damages from exceedances of
23 minimum water levels. We have never entered into
24 negotiations with Manitoba Hydro to remediate any
25 effects of the AFP. There has only been minimal
6187
1 mitigation other than possibly financial mitigation
2 of these effects and minimal remediation. We believe
3 this is not good enough.
4 Condition 6. The maximum drawdown on
5 Southern Indian Lake of 4 and a half feet is staged
6 over a period of time and in such a manner as to
7 minimize adverse impacts on Southern Indian Lake
8 residents. This drawdown was changed in two ways
9 from the CRD interim licence. First, because the AFP
10 increased and decreased water levels, the range had
11 to be changed, 843 to 847.5 feet is 4 and a half
12 feet.
13 Second, the CRD stated that the drawdown
14 range was to be operated as 2 foot in 12 months. So
15 the additional underlying component was not in the
16 CRD licence originally but the AFP added as a new
17 requirement. Despite this, we have never had any
18 discussions with Manitoba Hydro where they have
19 indicated to us how they are meeting this clause.
20 The monthly reports make no reference to it at all.
21 We are aware of no criteria used to
22 determine if there are minimizing adverse impacts on
23 us. If they do exist, we definitely have not been
24 involved in developing them or determining what they
25 should be.
6188
1 It is important to remember the
2 significance of a conditional approval. This means
3 these conditions must be met in order to be able to
4 engage in the AFP. So we should be asking ourselves,
5 is Manitoba Hydro doing what the Minister requires?
6 Does the Minister know whether all prescribed
7 conditions are being fully met? If all ministerial
8 conditions are not fully met, are annual AFP
9 operations lawful? If not, should CASIL accept or
10 agree with the baseline?
11 Section 10 of CRD licence makes clear
12 that the minimum water levels in regards to South
13 Indian are absolute. I quote,
14 "The licensee shall regulate the water
15 level of South Indian Lake so as to
16 prevent the water level from receding
17 below elevation 844 feet."
18 Also section 9 of the CRD licence states that,
19 "The licensee shall, during the
20 periods when the water level of South
21 Indian Lake is above elevation 847
22 feet operate Missi Falls and Notigi
23 control structures in such a manner as
24 to effect the maximum possible
25 discharge possible under the
6189
1 circumstances then prevailing until
2 the water level of the said lake
3 returns to elevation 847 feet."
4 The annual AFP conditional approval
5 increases the maximum water level regarding South
6 Indian Lake to 847.5 feet above sea level and
7 decreases the minimum level to 843 feet above sea
8 level.
9 There is no averaging of water level data
10 set out in the approval. That means that 847.5 feet
11 is instantaneous maximum. Averaging of any water
12 measurements is only allowed for flow measurements.
13 What is the evidence that ministerial
14 conditions are being satisfied? Section 21 of the
15 CRD licence requires water level measurements be
16 taken at the Inland Waters Branch Benchmark, which is
17 now under water at South Indian Lake Settlement.
18 This benchmark is also noted in the CASIL agreement.
19 Inland Waters Branch has been replaced by
20 the Canada Water Survey. The flooded Inland Waters
21 Branch Benchmark has been replaced by the Canada
22 Water Survey Benchmark number 06EC001, Southern
23 Indian Lake at South Indian Lake.
24 Both Manitoba Hydro and Water Stewardship
25 use the water level data from this station. We are
6190
1 informed by Manitoba Hydro that this is the marker to
2 determine water levels at South Indian Lake according
3 to licences. Neither the CRD licence nor annual
4 ministerial AFP conditional approvals allow for water
5 level measurements at additional stations. Neither
6 allow for water level measurements to be averaged.
7 Manitoba Hydro uses three other water
8 level monitoring stations around the lake, not only
9 the 06EC001 benchmark. Manitoba Hydro averages the
10 water level measurements from across all four
11 stations even though this is not allowed in any of
12 their licences.
13 Averaging across multiple stations
14 smooths the data. Averaging obscures variability of
15 water levels at any one station; for example, the
16 relevant station at South Indian Lake, this is not
17 authorized by the CRD interim licence or any of the
18 Minister's conditional AFP annual approvals and we
19 disagree with this approach.
20 Effects of wind and wave action are
21 already included in water level data, averaging all
22 day long which balances out highs and lows from wind
23 and wave. All operations must be in compliance even
24 with added effects wind and wave. Wind and wave
25 action added to high water levels make the water very
6191
1 dangerous for the residents of South Indian Lake.
2 How does Manitoba Hydro report on the
3 water levels at South Indian Lake? It averages
4 instantaneous daily data from all four stations over
5 one week. Manitoba Hydro Systems Operation personnel
6 informed us that in this case, "smoothing," and I
7 quote, "is created from a seven day running average."
8 For every single day, they use three days of water
9 measurements before the actual day and then three
10 days after and then they average the numbers.
11 Therefore, the data Manitoba Hydro reports is
12 smoothed weekly data.
13 Every reported daily value is in fact a
14 weekly average. This approach obscures highs and
15 lows of water measurements. No actual daily data are
16 reported. This is not authorized by licence or the
17 ministerial approval.
18 Sometime between 1991 and 1996, after AFP
19 approvals began, Manitoba Hydro began showing its
20 water level data for South Indian Lake as smoothed.
21 This change was not subject to public, regulatory or
22 CASIL approval or review as far as we know. Any
23 violation of approved or licensed water levels as
24 indicated by smoothed data will be less than the
25 number and severity of actual violations occurring at
6192
1 South Indian Lake community benchmark.
2 And this is exactly what has happened.
3 Manitoba Hydro has repeatedly stated in these
4 hearings that it is never in violation of any licence
5 that has been granted. Manitoba Hydro is evaluating
6 its licence compliance at South Indian Lake using
7 data where peak values has been obscured. This
8 technique minimizes the appearance of violations to
9 allow such public statements.
10 I will show you a monthly report from
11 February to April 1991. Ms. Phare will be getting
12 that for you shortly.
13 What you have now before you is a sample
14 monthly report from February to April 1991. This
15 report contains smoothed data obscuring almost three
16 months of lower water level limit violations of the
17 ministerial conditional approval of the Augmented
18 Flow Program for 1991. There is no clear
19 acknowledgment of violations in report text and no
20 mention of whether smoothing techniques used.
21 Manitoba Hydro uses the term nominal when reporting
22 water levels even though this is inaccurate. No
23 assessment of or notification to government or South
24 Indian Lake regarding adverse effects from
25 non-complying low levels for South Indian Lake such
6193
1 as dangers from ice collapse or damage to the
2 ecosystem.
3 We haven't analyzed every month every
4 violation. It is beyond the scope of our time,
5 budget and skill. We wanted to state that some show
6 up on the graphs, some of the levels are mentioned in
7 the cover letter but most are not. And if the actual
8 exceedance numbers are mentioned, they are not
9 acknowledged or reported as a licence violation.
10 Similarly, the implication of these high or low water
11 levels for the ecosystems or for our community
12 members was never indicated. We have never heard
13 from the province or Manitoba Hydro to notify us of
14 these violations of the CRD interim licence or the
15 AFP approved deviations.
16 Manitoba Hydro has mentioned the last 25
17 years of the AFP operation quite a few times. We
18 wanted to show you what it actually looks like in an
19 unsmoothed graphical format. This graph was
20 developed by Duncan & Associates, a local engineering
21 firm, the firm Manitoba Hydro paid for us to hire to
22 review the EIS from an engineering perspective with
23 water level data from the Water Survey Canada at
24 station 06EC001 Benchmark.
25 The graph itself, which I will explain
6194
1 here, the vertical axis is at the elevations. The
2 bottom axis is yearly data from 1976 to January '01.
3 The red lines are the upper licence limit, as
4 mentioned in section 9 of the CRD interim licence.
5 The bottom red line is the lower licence limit
6 referenced in article 10 of the CRD interim licence.
7 The blue lines are actual daily data. As you can
8 see, prior to ministerial approval of the augmented
9 flow, the blocks that just jump out there seems to
10 show they are within the ministerial approval. They
11 are either doing a very good job or there was
12 possible approval after the fact.
13 January 1986, the levels became absolute.
14 The peaks that will be -- the arrows that will be
15 coming will show the violations of the ministerial
16 approval of the Augmented Flow Program.
17 We have January 1990, January '91,
18 January of -- well, probably March of '93, March of
19 '97, well probably February of 2000 and again
20 February and March of 2001 an exceedance of the
21 maximum allowable levels. Approximately June of 2000
22 and also May and June of 1987. None of these
23 violations which show up here as little arrows were
24 ever reported to CASIL.
25 Canada Water Survey document showed 88
6195
1 daily violations of approved AFP lower water level.
2 Canada Water Survey document showed 25 daily
3 violations of approved AFP higher water level. Both
4 of those two references are since the AFP has been
5 approved. These Canada Water Survey documents show
6 AFP approval violations four of the last six and 10
7 of the last 16 years of AFP operation.
8 Manitoba Hydro is proposing no change to
9 the water regime. This means CASIL will continue to
10 be subjected to non-compliance and possibly damaging
11 water levels.
12 There had been 25 daily violations of the
13 maximum water levels allowed by the AFP approval.
14 These violations occurred in 1986 and 2000 on the
15 dates you can see on the slides. If you want the
16 actual data, I can provide it for you.
17 There have been 188 days of low water
18 level violations of the AFP approval. I just wanted
19 to point out that these do not include Missi Falls
20 violations, even though the flows out of Missi Falls
21 have very much impact on the water levels of Southern
22 Indian Lake.
23 We have not conducted a statistical
24 analysis on the actual daily water data. We
25 understand that numerous assumptions underly any
6196
1 statistical review, not the least of which is the
2 period of record that is being relied upon. I am a
3 lay person, not an expert. And this hasn't been
4 reviewed by an expert.
5 But to a lay person reviewing this graph,
6 it appears that in general, as the green line
7 indicates, maximum water levels are tending to
8 increase while minimum are staying constant. This
9 looks to me like the spread between highs and lows
10 are increasing. This could mean increasing
11 violations of the high levels if this trend
12 continues. I would like to remind you that if this
13 is the case, then this could result in the sediment
14 increases we talked about in the presentation dealing
15 with cumulative effects earlier. The smoothing
16 technique would continue to obscure this information.
17 There has been no AFP conditional
18 approval violations that were ever reported to CASIL
19 by Manitoba Hydro or the province. We do not know if
20 these violations were ever specifically reported to
21 the province. They are not indicated in the monthly
22 reports to CASIL or South Indian Lake. If they were
23 reported, we do not know if the province responded.
24 Did they allow these deviations to the AFP terms?
25 Were they approved after the fact? There was no
6197
1 notification to us that these violations were ever
2 approved. These violations are not in accordance
3 with the CASIL agreement.
4 Our agreement was predicated upon
5 Manitoba Hydro adherence to licence terms and because
6 of how much we disagreed with any more increases in
7 the range of water levels. We specifically reserved
8 CASIL's right to oppose any further deviation of any
9 magnitude under 847.5 feet above sea level. We
10 expected that this would occur through the due
11 process, not a process internal to government and
12 Manitoba Hydro. If that is actually what happens
13 every time these exceedances occur, it is in
14 violation of our agreement.
15 The monthly reports discloses only
16 smoothed South Indian Lake levels, not daily levels.
17 By contrast, the reports do provide other apparently
18 unsmoothed data for other water bodies such as the
19 Notigi forebay levels. Manitoba Hydro provides no
20 report on measures it took to minimize any adverse
21 effects of a drawdown on South Indian Lake members.
22 Manitoba Hydro provides no report on whether there
23 were any effects on the altered levels and flows
24 during any time periods. Therefore, there has been
25 no report on any mitigation measures that were
6198
1 required or taken by Manitoba Hydro.
2 No report ever identifies the maximum
3 drawdown that occurred in any given year although a
4 quick review shows drawdowns in excess of the AFP
5 limit of four and a half feet. No reports ever
6 identified the manner of drawdown at South Indian
7 Lake or the way Manitoba Hydro ensures that it
8 minimizes the adverse effects on South Indian Lake
9 residents.
10 Apparently Manitoba Hydro sends weekly
11 reports to the Manitoba Government. CASIL doesn't
12 know the content of these weekly reports. We have
13 never seen one. If the monthly reports sent to CASIL
14 and the Community of South Indian Lake are the same,
15 sent to the Directors of Water Branch and
16 Environmental Approvals Branch, then the directors
17 are not being kept fully informed about all aspects
18 of the AFP.
19 Our conclusion is that the Manitoba Hydro
20 reports are not adequate. The information required
21 by their approval or licences is either not generated
22 or is omitted from the report.
23 Manitoba Hydro is violating the
24 conditions imposed by the Minister in their
25 conditional Augmented Flow Program approval yet
6199
1 Manitoba Water Branch makes no inquiries and does not
2 ensure compliance with key conditions. This is clear
3 from the testimony of Steve Topping on May 11, 2004.
4 It may be just my perspective but he looked surprised
5 to even be asked these licence compliance questions.
6 It is very clear to me that Manitoba Hydro is
7 self-regulating in regards to the AFP.
8 Missi Falls levels affects South Indian
9 Lake levels. The more water that goes out it, the
10 lower -- that lowers our lake and vice versa. And
11 our members are affected by these changes. South
12 Indian Lake members fish downstream of Missi control
13 structure.
14 There are numerous violations of the
15 daily levels provided in the data given by Manitoba
16 Hydro in undertakings 49 and 50. Manitoba Hydro has
17 no licence authority to average the daily data or to
18 convert it to monthly values.
19 Further, the no change to the water
20 regime approach being proposed by Manitoba Hydro for
21 the Wuskwatim project will perpetuate these
22 violations and any effects they cause. And we of
23 course don't know the effects they may cause because
24 we didn't actually know that any of this was
25 happening.
6200
1 Manitoba Conservation and Water
2 Stewardship didn't know which licence applied or what
3 the terms of the Missi licence are. No government
4 personnel could tell us what the licence water levels
5 are. We asked four different people in Conservation
6 and Water Stewardship.
7 Mr. Dave Cormie stated that Missi levels
8 are set by Manitoba Hydro and are not licence terms.
9 This is incorrect. There has been -- it has been
10 very difficult to get a straight answer from either
11 government or Manitoba Hydro on this question and it
12 has involved four interrogatory questions. And only
13 we have insisted on going back to the original data
14 and on getting an answer to the questions of what are
15 the licensing terms.
16 I would point out that the government has
17 yet to give us the answer to that question and we
18 asked it almost two weeks ago.
19 So who is regulating Missi flows? And
20 who is ensuring the compliance of licence 2327? It
21 is clear that Manitoba Hydro sets their own terms of
22 this licence and no one is ensuring compliance.
23 In Manitoba Hydro answers to undertakings
24 49 and 50 and the CASIL question dated April 13,
25 2004, it is clear that non-compliance with licence is
6201
1 demonstrated. Manitoba Hydro demonstrates unapproved
2 averaging and rounding of licensed limits, an
3 unwillingness to regulate to a firm limit and the
4 unlicensed use of 100 cubic feet per second range for
5 licensed water levels.
6 Manitoba Hydro compares daily totals
7 against monthly averaged limits or rounds to the
8 nearest 100 cubic feet per second in order to be able
9 to say they are in compliance with licence 2327.
10 Despite these techniques, Manitoba Hydro data shows
11 numerous violations, over 150 daily violations.
12 Manitoba Hydro's approach to complying with their
13 licence isn't good enough. These South Indian Lake
14 levels and Missi Falls flows are related and our
15 members are affected by these violations.
16 To bring us back to the Wuskwatim
17 operations. I want to remind you of Manitoba Hydro's
18 position on these matters. They say there will be no
19 change to the CRD operation or water regime beyond
20 the study area. This is from the Manitoba Hydro/NCN
21 powerpoint presentation done earlier at these
22 hearings. The operations of the AFP will not change.
23 This is from the EIS.
24 The Duncan & Associates report, Manitoba
25 Hydro paid for this review. Manitoba Hydro testimony
6202
1 relied upon DAL finds of no impacts to South Indian
2 Lake from Wuskwatim. CASIL provided the DAL report
3 to Manitoba Hydro, I think it would be now yesterday,
4 May 24, 2004.
5 DAL found there would be no backwater
6 effect but they also said the Manitoba Hydro water
7 regime, "no change" assumptions are not valid if any
8 terms and conditions are applied to Wuskwatim
9 licences because if any flow or water level
10 constraint are in the Wuskwatim licences, this will
11 potentially affect operations of the CRD and was not
12 studied. This could mean entire "no change"
13 assumption is invalid.
14 They also found that all past impacts
15 must be fully remediated, concerns addressed and
16 proper baselines established.
17 Is Manitoba Hydro stating that the
18 overall regime patterns won't change even if the
19 daily operations do change? This is misleading. It
20 allows Manitoba Hydro to avoid presenting detailed
21 information about the entire water regime upon which
22 Wuskwatim depends.
23 What is the environmental effect of
24 current AFP exceedances? This is not considered in
25 the EIS. It has been defined out of the EIS by
6203
1 Manitoba Hydro. The EIS assumes compliance with
2 licences in water levels which is not a valid
3 assumption. What is the environmental effect if, in
4 the future, Manitoba Hydro stays within the terms of
5 their AFP approval? This is a change from the
6 present. We don't know the answer.
7 Are AFP and Missi Falls exceedances
8 included in the definition of the baseline water flow
9 conditions? What about the terms and conditions of
10 the Wuskwatim licences? The EIS does not give
11 necessary or optimal operations for licence
12 conditions.
13 What is the social effect on South Indian
14 Lake of learning about these licence violations? We
15 lack trust in Manitoba Hydro and the province. We
16 are not informed of these issues by anyone. There is
17 heightened anxiety and fear about aggravated effects
18 of the AFP and that these effects could worsen. This
19 is a social effect of the proposed Wuskwatim
20 generating station and is not addressed in the EIS.
21 Manitoba Hydro got it wrong in 1977 when
22 they created the CRD. Who would have created a
23 regime to create injury to NCN that would cost
24 themselves $78 million? Either they didn't care or
25 they got it wrong but either way, how do we know that
6204
1 they have changed?
2 You've been listening to the days of
3 testimony from their experts but other experts have
4 gotten it very wrong in the past. They haven't done
5 a study to review the past mistakes. If you have
6 never studied your past mistakes, how can you know
7 they won't be repeated? How is it different now?
8 If the CEC recommends licensing Wuskwatim
9 at this time given the information now provided, the
10 CEC will be condoning continued violations of both
11 terms and conditions of the AFP conditional approval
12 and the CASIL agreement saying it is acceptable to
13 proceed with another large project without assurances
14 that proponent can control the underlying operations,
15 the augmented flow, and with evidence provided to the
16 contrary.
17 Accepting additional unknown damage to
18 the river system without knowing if licensed damage
19 is acceptable, there has been -- no past EIS has ever
20 been done. Or if there's damage that may be created
21 by ongoing licence violations. What terms can be
22 imposed without modifying existing regime in some
23 way?
24 If the CEC recommends that Wuskwatim
25 proceed in these circumstances, you will formalize
6205
1 and sanction licence violations, systemic
2 non-disclosure of pertinent information, refusals to
3 fully identify and evaluate incremental effects of
4 new hydro projects, proponent self-regulation.
5 CASIL asks the CEC to recommend review by
6 independent panel of entire operations of the
7 Manitoba Hydro system, dams, reservoirs and forebays,
8 and extensive compliance of all licences system-wide.
9 Creation of independent panel to review and audit
10 Manitoba Hydro operations on an ongoing basis. No
11 Wuskwatim licence decision until there has been a
12 full review of all operations, explanation for all
13 violations, proposed changes required to avoid future
14 violations, independent monitoring of Manitoba Hydro
15 operations and all levels and flows by local
16 residents.
17 CASIL also asks the CEC to recommend
18 Manitoba Government demonstrate that it will ensure
19 Manitoba Hydro compliance with all existing licences.
20 Manitoba Hydro to provide unaveraged daily data in
21 reports and report on all activities including those
22 to ensure compliance with all conditions in AFP
23 approval.
24 Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro to create and
25 implement measures for immediate notification to all
6206
1 potentially affected parties of possible or actual
2 non-compliance. Dissemination of monitoring
3 information by local residents.
4 CASIL further asks CEC to recommend that
5 Manitoba Government discontinue the Augmented Flow
6 Program, especially given that Manitoba Hydro stated
7 that AFP is not required for Wuskwatim to be
8 financially viable. If you decide it is best to
9 continue with the Wuskwatim project, a full
10 environmental review needs to be done including the
11 upper and lower Churchill River systems and the
12 reservoir of South Indian Lake.
13 We ask that you recommend a moratorium on
14 any future dams until the past impacts are fully
15 defined and fully mitigated.
16 I'd like to thank the Commission.
17 There's some further information.
18 It is critical to note one thing. You
19 may say that how the CRD or AFP operating effect
20 South Indian Lake is outside your terms of reference.
21 We have shown you the scope of the issue regarding
22 the water regime in place along the entire system.
23 Even if Manitoba Hydro is correct and there are no
24 CRD AFP issues for South Indian Lake, this does not
25 apply regarding Wuskwatim Lake itself.
6207
1 Wuskwatim Lake is within the study area
2 defined by Manitoba Hydro and NCN, yet they have not
3 reviewed any aspect of the CRD AFP violations for
4 that area as we have for the South Indian Lake area.
5 They were required to fully review this and they have
6 not. They haven't even studied it in the study area.
7 This review must be done.
8 Again, I'd like to thank the Clean
9 Environment Commission for allowing us the
10 opportunity to make this presentation.
11 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, if we would
12 just assign an exhibit number to the overhead as
13 CASIL 1008 and the various data documents that were
14 presented as CASIL 1009.
15
16 (EXHIBIT CASIL 1008: Presentation Slides:
17 Existing Water Regime Operations)
18
19 (EXHIBIT CASIL 1009: Various data
20 documents presented by CASIL)
21
22 THE CHAIRMAN: I ask for direction. We
23 could proceed with questions now. We did indicate
24 some time ago that we would provide some time for
25 filings of undertakings by Hydro. So, Mr. Grewar,
6208
1 you indicated that we would allow time before lunch
2 to do that. We could do that now or else proceed to
3 start with the questions. But that would be breaking
4 it up for sure. So perhaps we could hold off with
5 the questions until after lunch and use the remaining
6 time before lunch to file the undertakings.
7 MR. L. DYSART: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dysart.
9 MR. L. DYSART: We'd prefer if
10 questioning started immediately.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: So we will proceed. We
12 will begin with the questioning. First of all, we'll
13 let some of the members of the panel here if they
14 want to ask questions. To the members, we'll hold
15 questions for now.
16 Elder Dysart, do you have some questions?
17 MR. S. DYSART: Yes, I have a lot of
18 questions. But the first question I was going to ask
19 William Dysart. In the last 30 years, I had been
20 speaking with him about trapping, fishing
21 fluctuations, I forgot to ask him one question. And
22 the question, William, is this. Why did Manitoba
23 Hydro move you on the opposite shore when they know
24 they were going to build a highway and they were
25 having problems right till January, February before
6209
1 you can go across by truck to go shopping or get out
2 of town? What was the reason?
3 MR. W. DYSART: My answer to that is in
4 two parts. You are a partner to Manitoba Hydro. You
5 should know that, the reasons why, okay, for
6 instance. The other part is that it stands to reason
7 why they moved us across because at the same,
8 practically the same year, the airport was into a
9 final finish. So the main source of activity was for
10 officials, construction workers, Hydro people,
11 government people was coming by air. So the airport
12 was on the east side of the lake.
13 Now, if they had to move the people from
14 the east side of the lake to the west side, they
15 would have had a lot of considerable cost involved in
16 it because the activity would have involved a bridge.
17 It's all about dollars. That's why it moved that
18 way.
19 Did that answer your question fully?
20 MR. S. DYSART: Yeah, I was wondering
21 about that, about transportation. Maybe I have one
22 for the young fella, Leslie. CASIL, in the Future
23 Development Team at South Indian, do you guys
24 exchange information or do you help each other as
25 your 90 per cent, like you say, Band members now? Do
6210
1 they help you?
2 MR. L. DYSART: Yeah, I'm glad you put it
3 that way as just -- we do receive -- I actually,
4 myself speaking as a representative for CASIL,
5 probably I think it's safe to say I'm about the only
6 person that talks to the future development team in
7 regards to the Wuskwatim project. They do give me
8 information. I do try to exchange information. But
9 they often don't have the answers to my questions.
10 And I can understand their position. I mean they
11 haven't been trained. They've been just given
12 documentation here to consult. It's not
13 consultation. That's just giving predetermined
14 information.
15 Mike Dumas specifically is no longer a
16 Future Development Team member specifically. He did
17 meet with our board at one time to provide again
18 predetermined information. One of my board members
19 specifically told him this is not consultation. We
20 know your position. You're a member of our community
21 and we respect that so we will allow you to do your
22 presentation.
23 I think both Michael Dumas and Valerie
24 Dysart who were at the time -- I know there's been a
25 change in the past two months, have made an extra
6211
1 effort to give me information because I do ask the
2 questions. But again, I don't believe that's
3 consultation. That's just a giving of information.
4 So to summarize, yes, I have talked to
5 the Future Development Team in South Indian on a
6 number of occasions.
7 MR. S. DYSART: I was going to ask you
8 another simple question. The name O-Pipon-Na-Piwin,
9 where do you think that came from, the name?
10 MR. L. DYSART: I think I'll transfer
11 that to my father who has a lot more knowledge than I
12 do.
13 MR. W. DYSART: Well, I'll answer it this
14 way but there is no documented history right now in
15 front of us or anywhere else but I will base it on my
16 memory.
17 O-Pipon-Na-Piwin was named on the
18 purposes of the land that it was very resourceful.
19 From down river or west side of the areas of South
20 Indian Lake people went to South Indian Lake and they
21 called it O-Pipon-Na-Piwin because they moved there
22 on account of the resources in terms of fish, in
23 terms of fur, mainly for fish purposes. Because you
24 can remember yourself, downstream on the Rat River,
25 there was hardly any viable domestic fishing rounds
6212
1 until after the CRD was channeled through there.
2 So that's why the main question and the
3 answer, that's why O-Pipon-Na-Piwin was named because
4 they spent their winters there in terms of resources.
5 MR. S. DYSART: Okay. Leslie, I'll get
6 back to you. The reason why I asked that since you
7 said 90 per cent are now Cree people. If there are
8 90 per cent of them, I think I know the answer where
9 the other 10 are too, but the thing is now you can
10 move back to Nelson House and be NCN members and you
11 move back like the old days. The question is would
12 you agree to that?
13 MR. L. DYSART: I'd reverse that and say
14 why don't you come back home?
15 MR. S. DYSART: Yeah, me.
16 MR. L. DYSART: You know, we are
17 originally from South Indian Lake. Membership in the
18 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation was not, as far as we can
19 gather from history, not a decision made by the
20 people of South Indian Lake. Again, it was a
21 decision made by government, the Canadian Government
22 arbitrarily, without consultation with our people.
23 They never even came to South Indian Lake where there
24 was people living and residing all year round. So
25 just by default, we became Nisichawayasihk Cree
6213
1 Nation members.
2 We do have a lot of interactions. I mean
3 you are my uncle. I have many friends and relations
4 from NCN. There's a lot of interaction. I don't
5 disagree with that. But in our opinion, we have
6 always been at South Indian Lake and always will be.
7 So come back home.
8 MR. S. DYSART: Okay. I got no hard
9 feelings and I got no hard feelings in talking to
10 both of you. And I don't think I ever will but I
11 hope that the panel understands and everybody
12 understands that we have same feelings for each other
13 and we have same feelings for our environment. It
14 doesn't matter where our relations live and what they
15 do, we still have feelings for them. They get hurt
16 one way or the other. Thank you.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Other
18 questions? Would you clarify for my purposes, Mr.
19 Dysart, the proportion or how many residents live in
20 South Indian Lake? And from my understanding, there
21 is two communities, the Displaced Residents, so they
22 are all in one location.
23 MR. L. DYSART: No. The Community of
24 South Indian Lake is one community. I'd hate to
25 speak on behalf of the Displaced Residents, the
6214
1 representatives are in the audience, those people are
2 brothers and sisters and all the relations are
3 originally from South Indian Lake but for the most
4 part do not actually reside there currently.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
6 MR. L. DYSART: That's why I would
7 assume, like subject to correction from actual
8 Displaced Residents, that's why they use the term
9 "displaced".
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. My
11 understanding is that while you've stated that you
12 signed a settlement with Manitoba Hydro in 1992, and
13 that settlement or that agreement carried or held
14 some conditions which you enumerated in your
15 presentation with a maximum and a minimum in terms of
16 water levels above sea level. And your compensation
17 was based on that agreement. Do I understand from
18 your presentation that if these conditions were not
19 violated, then your agreement, you'd be prepared or
20 you -- well, you are not prepared because you have
21 signed an agreement, that the agreement you have no
22 problem with.
23 MR. L. DYSART: There is many problems
24 with the CASIL agreement. Yes, it is agreement and
25 we'd hope everybody would abide by it. Our people
6215
1 aren't satisfied with the CASIL agreement. It's very
2 different from the other implementation agreements
3 signed by the NFA bands. South Indian has always
4 been dealt with a double standard. Had no resources,
5 no assistance from government to help us address our
6 concerns. So we had to basically proceed on our own
7 with very very limited resources.
8 To say I'm satisfied with the agreement,
9 no. To say the people of South Indian Lake are
10 satisfied with the agreement, no. But we have to
11 live with it and hope everybody abides by it. Is
12 there deficiencies? Yes, but we're not here to talk
13 about this agreement other than the key terms in
14 regards to the levels.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: But isn't it a fact that
16 much of your presentation has to do with what you
17 have termed as deficiencies in regards to their
18 agreement?
19 MR. L. DYSART: More specific to the
20 Augmented Flow Program, it's a schedule attached to
21 our agreement and it's very specific. That's the way
22 I want to reference it. I mean they have licences
23 that -- Manitoba Hydro has licences with this
24 province with the specific elevations. I'll just try
25 to reiterate, those are again in our agreement,
6216
1 schedule "D". If that's -- or questions arising or
2 any other reference, if you could be more specific.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm interested in
4 regards specifically and that's what I'm asking, in
5 regards to the Augmented Flow Program because the
6 Augmented Flow is more directly within the parameters
7 of this hearing because they are part of the
8 presentation made by Manitoba Hydro in regards to the
9 operation of Wuskwatim. And that's why I am asking
10 in regards to the provisions of the Augmented Flow
11 Program, if that is the main source of your concerns?
12 MR. L. DYSART: I will allow Neil Duboff,
13 our legal counsel, to answer that question. He might
14 be more helpful in clarifying.
15 MR. DUBOFF: The Augmented Flow Program,
16 as Mr. Dysart just said, is a schedule to the
17 agreement of 1992. And the schedule provides that
18 it's a recognition of the deviation to the Churchill
19 River diversion licence. So it's a recognition of
20 the amendment to the licence because there was no
21 authority within South Indian Lake to amend the
22 licence. So the licence had been amended and then
23 there is an agreement and approval. There is an
24 agreement by South Indian Lake to that amendment on
25 the provision of certain things happening. And
6217
1 those -- that amendment to the licence provides for
2 the ceiling of 847.5 and 843.
3 What Mr. Dysart is saying is two parts.
4 Point number one is that from their calculations of
5 the data using a different methodology than Manitoba
6 Hydro, they have violated their licence and they have
7 violated the schedule in that the schedule provided
8 for certain limits. That's the extent to their
9 point.
10 The second point in relation to the
11 licence is that there is a term of this schedule "D"
12 which reads Manitoba Hydro agrees to terminate its
13 program and decrease diversion flow to appropriate
14 levels if at any time it appears that the above-noted
15 conditions may be violated or if conditions arise
16 which would present a hazard to local residents.
17 Mr. Dysart's point is that they have been
18 violated and he enumerated the numbers of times.
19 They are in violation both of their licence and of
20 this schedule using the methodology of calculations
21 that Mr. Dysart has presented.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. There are two
23 facets to this. There is an agreement that deals
24 with the CRD. There is an amendment which deals with
25 the augmented flow. And your concern is that because
6218
1 based on the information that you presented, because
2 there have been violations of the additional portion
3 which -- what did you call it?
4 MR. DUBOFF: Augmented Flow Program.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, the modification
6 related to the augmented flow having been, as per
7 your information, violated, you are concerned that
8 these will continue and, therefore, the adverse
9 effects will continue to be experienced by your
10 community; am I correct?
11 MR. L. DYSART: I will allow Ms.
12 Merrell-Ann Phare to answer that.
13 MS. PHARE: That is a correct answer but
14 only partially deals with the question. In addition
15 to that, we are concerned that that system of
16 operating the Churchill River Diversion and the
17 Augmented Flow Program will be entrenched through the
18 approval of Wuskwatim because that information has
19 not been provided to you. You haven't had the
20 opportunity through the Environmental Impact
21 Statement to understand how the CRD and the AFP are
22 operated. You've been told that the regime is the
23 following licence conditions but in fact, there is
24 some deviation from those licence conditions as we've
25 shown you. And those conditions apply through the
6219
1 entire CRD operations, which includes Wuskwatim Lake.
2 Not only have the CRD and Augmented Flow
3 Program operations not been dealt with for South
4 Indian Lake, you may say that's beyond your terms of
5 reference, but they have also -- a similar analysis
6 has not occurred directly within the study area. We
7 have no idea whether a similar analysis to what we've
8 presented would change the results of the
9 Environmental Impact Statement along that entire
10 stretch of the river, all of the stretches that have
11 been analyzed.
12 The approach to dealing with the
13 operations and the existing regime is to say they
14 won't change, therefore we don't need to look at
15 them.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Mayer.
17 MR. MAYER: William Dysart, sir, I
18 understand for your presentation that you
19 represent -- there are 180 commercial fishers who are
20 members of the South Indian Lake Fishermen's
21 Association; is that correct?
22 MR. W. DYSART: Yes, a round figure.
23 MR. MAYER: And approximately how many
24 commercial fishers did you have in 1970?
25 MR. W. DYSART: I think it was 87.
6220
1 MR. MAYER: So despite what you tell us
2 is devastation, your membership has increased from 87
3 to 170 commercial fishers?
4 MR. W. DYSART: The population is to
5 blame on that, yes.
6 MR. MAYER: I see. And each of these
7 people I am assuming has commercial fishing licences;
8 is that correct?
9 MR. W. DYSART: Yes.
10 MR. MAYER: Where do most -- all right.
11 Can you tell me the range, where those licences are
12 granted? I mean I want to -- if we use the
13 Churchill/Rat/Burntwood system, from how far south
14 does your licence area go and how far north and east?
15 MR. W. DYSART: It comes -- it starts
16 from where the two resource areas meet. There's a
17 black line there.
18 MR. MAYER: Refresh my memory.
19 Approximately where would that be on the
20 Burntwood/Rat River?
21 MR. W. DYSART: They call it a trapline
22 -- resource area zone on each outlying community,
23 whatever, hey. And that's where your qualifications
24 falls in terms of licensing, in terms of fishing.
25 MR. MAYER: Okay. So I have assumed
6221
1 then --
2 MR. W. DYSART: Well, I couldn't tell you
3 exactly where it is unless we look at a map.
4 MR. MAYER: Okay. Does it include, do
5 you have any licences on Wuskwatim Lake?
6 MR. W. DYSART: Oh, no.
7 MR. MAYER: None at all?
8 MR. W. DYSART: No.
9 MR. MAYER: Then how do you assume then?
10 I am now looking -- sorry, this isn't your problem,
11 Mr. William Dysart, I am looking at page 13 of the
12 initial presentation where interviews from findings
13 on hunting, fishing and trapping concerns with
14 Wuskwatim, that the Wuskwatim project itself will
15 significantly damage the fish harvest of the fishers
16 of South Indian Lake. Can somebody tell me how that
17 would happen?
18 MR. W. DYSART: We're trying to put a
19 point across. That kind of a demonstration has an
20 effect on all species of fish or wildlife I should
21 say, not necessarily has to raise the water.
22 MR. MAYER: Okay. Now do you dispute
23 Hydro's suggestion that any change in the water
24 levels created by the Wuskwatim project would not go
25 further upstream than Early Morning Rapids? Do you
6222
1 dispute that? I don't care who at the table wants to
2 answer that.
3 MS. HARDESS: We don't dispute that. Our
4 point in presenting that information is that clearly
5 the people who were participating in that community
6 research believe that the Wuskwatim project is going
7 to impact them as far as fishing, hunting and
8 trapping goes. And so when Manitoba Hydro tells us
9 that they had a good public participation program, we
10 are saying, well, either you didn't speak to these
11 people because this information isn't recorded in the
12 EIS. We don't see that there are these dissenting
13 opinions or that these people were spoken to and
14 don't believe you.
15 So our point is not that this would
16 happen, it's that these are the beliefs of the
17 people.
18 MR. MAYER: Thank you. That's where I
19 wanted to get to. I'm looking now to Leslie's
20 presentation. I'm sorry to be so informal but I
21 can't think of a better way unless to call you elder
22 and younger. But pages 14 to 16, you set out your
23 interview findings and community -- sorry, 13 to 16
24 interview knowledge and community findings. Firstly,
25 who developed the questions?
6223
1 MS. HARDESS: CIER developed questions in
2 consultation with CASIL.
3 MR. MAYER: Who?
4 MS. HARDESS: The Centre for Indigenous
5 Environmental Resources. They were subcontracted by
6 CASIL.
7 MR. MAYER: Okay. And what information
8 was provided to the people to whom these questions
9 were asked prior to asking those questions?
10 MS. HARDESS: What do you mean? How were
11 they chosen or? I mean they --
12 MR. MAYER: No. What kind of information
13 was provided to the people to whom you asked the
14 questions?
15 MR. L. DYSART: I think I know what
16 you're getting at here. If the participant
17 information program was as successful as the
18 proponents are advocating, that information would
19 have been there for them to review at any time they
20 wanted to.
21 Now specific to the questionnaire, we did
22 not provide any information. It wasn't our job to
23 provide any information on Wuskwatim. That's the
24 proponent's job.
25 Now, the questionnaire was developed with
6224
1 the assistance of the Centre for Indigenous
2 Environmental Resources, CIER, with discussion with
3 myself and the members of my board. And the people
4 we retained to actually do the interviews, we asked
5 them not to -- just to discuss it first with the
6 participants, whether they wanted to participate, why
7 it was being done and we always had to give
8 assurances that it wasn't being done for Manitoba
9 Hydro or NCN and that sometimes that took some
10 convincing.
11 But as far as hard data, if that's what
12 you were referring to, I think that's the proponent's
13 job to provide information on the Wuskwatim project.
14 MR. MAYER: I wasn't asking for your
15 opinion on who was supposed to provide the data, I
16 was attempting to determine, firstly, who created the
17 questions and, secondly, what information was
18 provided. I think you've given me that information
19 now. But with all due respect, sir, and to the
20 organization who did it, anybody can create a
21 question to get an answer. And anybody can create a
22 poll to get a result. So I'm trying to get the
23 background that you have that arrive at some of those
24 statements made in pages 13 through 16 which, if you
25 accept that the effects on the water regime from the
6225
1 building of Wuskwatim alone won't go north -- or
2 sorry, won't go up river of Early Morning Rapids make
3 no sense at all.
4 MR. L. DYSART: The original
5 questionnaire was provided to the Clean Environment
6 Commission in February.
7 MS. HARDESS: It's also in the report
8 that we'll provide you in its entirety.
9 MR. L. DYSART: Yeah, I agree. Surveys
10 can be conducted and developed to get the answers you
11 want. If you review the questionnaire that was
12 reviewed, you will see that these questions we
13 developed are very open-ended and allow the people to
14 give their opinion. We didn't go seeking specific
15 answers. We wanted people's opinion of what they
16 thought and what they believe.
17 Like I said, we weren't sure to say to
18 you that we believe what these people are saying,
19 South Indian Lake residents I mean, this is what they
20 believe, this is what they said. I'm not trying to
21 tell you it's right or wrong.
22 MR. MAYER: I think I understand that.
23 Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will
25 adjourn for a luncheon break and we will be back here
6226
1 by eight minutes after 1:00, ten minutes after 1:00.
2 I'm being pressured.
3
4 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 12:13 P.M.
5 AND RECONVENED AT 1:10 P.M.)
6
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen,
8 could you please find your places so we can begin
9 shortly.
10 All right, ladies and gentlemen, we
11 are going to continue where we left off this
12 morning, and we were in the process of asking
13 questions of CASIL based on their presentation.
14 Mr. Nepinak?
15 MR. NEPINAK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16 My question is to this -- I understand that, you
17 know, you are working on a different, a separate
18 reserve status. How many separate agreements do
19 you have with Hydro, separate from the main NCN
20 band? Are there any joint agreements between
21 yourselves and NCN central office? I just wanted
22 clarification of the line of administration or
23 authority leading up to this decision making here.
24 MR. L. DYSART: The community of South
25 Indian Lake has a number of agreements. None of
6227
1 these agreements are in relation with
2 Nisichawayasihk, they are not signatories to any
3 of our agreements. Our agreements are with
4 different entities within the community, CASIL the
5 Community Association of South Indian Lake is one,
6 and then there is the Trappers and the Fishermen.
7 These agreements are signed by the
8 community groups, representatives of community
9 groups, Manitoba Hydro, the Province of Manitoba.
10 One glaring omission to date is these
11 agreements have not been signed off by Canada and
12 in our opinion are still outstanding issues that
13 need to be addressed.
14 As far as the number of agreements,
15 CASIL is one, in combination is with CASIL there
16 is the South Lake Housing Association. The
17 Trappers have two agreements -- South Indian Lake
18 Trappers Association has one agreement and
19 Fishermen one specific agreement.
20 Does that answer your question?
21 MR. NEPINAK: Yeah, pretty much.
22 Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Abra?
24 MR. ABRA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
25 Members of the CASIL panel, I have a few questions
6228
1 for you.
2 Firstly, the Duncan report that
3 apparently reference was made to this morning,
4 which I understand was given to Manitoba Hydro
5 yesterday, can we be provided with a copy of that
6 report, please?
7 MR. L. DYSART: Yes, you can. As soon
8 as possible, we will get copies made.
9 MR. ABRA: Nextly, on page 9 and page
10 10 of the second report given by Les Dysart this
11 morning -- or the second submission, there are
12 graphs that you have relied upon. All I want to
13 know is whether or not you have those graphs on a
14 digital component that can be provided to us so
15 that we can blow them up for closer examination?
16 MS. PHARE: Yes, we can.
17 MR. ABRA: In fact, any graphs that
18 you have relied on -- I think those are the only
19 two, but any of graphs that you have relied upon
20 in your submission, we would like them on the
21 digital so that we can take them from there.
22 Now, there are some questions related
23 to the interpretation of the Churchill River
24 Diversion interim licenses and the Augmented Flow
25 Program interim licenses, and I just want to make
6229
1 sure that I understand your position, because the
2 members of the Clean Environment Commission may be
3 asking me at some point, as their counsel, to give
4 them an interpretation of the issues that you have
5 raised this morning, and I want to make sure that
6 I understand what your position is.
7 Now, firstly, page 6 of the second
8 submission by Les Dysart this morning, you say and
9 I quote:
10 "The annual Augmented Flow Program
11 conditional approvals establish
12 maximum water levels re SIL..."
13 South Indian Lake I understand that to mean,
14 "...at 847.5 feet ASL..."
15 which I assume means above sea level,
16 "...and minimum level at 843 feet
17 ASL."
18 Now, is it your position that the approvals in the
19 interim licenses for both CRD and AFP cannot go
20 above 847.5 feet?
21 MR. L. DYSART: Yes, that's our
22 position.
23 MR. ABRA: That is your position? The
24 reason I ask is my reading of section 9 of the
25 interim CRD license, there is a reference in it to
6230
1 not going above 847 feet, but it goes on to state,
2 in my interpretation of it, and I just want to
3 know what your interpretation is, that in the
4 event it goes above 847 feet that it just means
5 that Hydro is supposed to let more water out in
6 Notigi and Missi Falls.
7 MR. L. DYSART: Yes.
8 MR. ABRA: So, it contemplates, in my
9 reading in section 9 of the interim license for
10 CRD, it contemplates that water levels may go
11 above 847 feet sometimes, but Hydro then has to
12 take steps to remedy that?
13 MR. L. DYSART: Yes.
14 MS. PHARE: In fact, we have an
15 interpretation that says that there is a maximum
16 level that is set out in the CRD license. The
17 second provision saying, if you go over the
18 maximum level, we won't consider this to be a
19 license violation if you do the following things.
20 That's how CASIL is interpreting that clause and
21 has interpreted that clause. It doesn't say that
22 you don't have a maximum level. There is a
23 maximum level that applies, it is 847 or 847.5
24 since that time. The license just says, here's
25 what you do if you go over.
6231
1 MR. ABRA: If it goes above?
2 MS. PHARE: Right. And you're
3 supposed to do that immediately. One of the
4 reasons why we have that perspective is because if
5 you look at, for example, the monthly data sample
6 report that we gave out to you, it shows over
7 three months of staying at a particular level that
8 is below the licensed limit. That's not what the
9 license is contemplating.
10 MR. ABRA: What causes you concern in
11 that regard then is that, notwithstanding that
12 under the interim license it appears that they are
13 supposed to take remedial steps, if they have
14 stayed above the level for some three months, then
15 they are not taking the remedial steps? Do I
16 understand that to be your concern?
17 MS. PHARE: The actual sample we gave
18 out was a lower license violation, and that
19 provision there, the CRD license does not give any
20 action that is supposed to happen in the case of a
21 lower license limit violation. It doesn't say --
22 MR. ABRA: No, no, the one I am
23 raising is the maximum level.
24 MS. PHARE: Right. Our opinion is
25 that there is a difference between stating a
6232
1 maximum level and saying -- and providing actions
2 of what you're supposed to do if you violate it.
3 But, it is technically, in our opinion, a
4 violation of that term, in particular, when it is
5 compounded with the fact that in some
6 circumstances, Manitoba Hydro has not immediately
7 responded to the upper limit violation.
8 MR. ABRA: I see. So, it is your
9 interpretation then that -- if you use the word
10 "violation," I understand it to, in essence, mean
11 that they are in breach of the agreement -- or
12 excuse me -- of the license; is that your
13 position?
14 MS. PHARE: I think those two terms
15 need to be read together and that is how CASIL
16 reads them, that going over 847.5 is in violation
17 of the agreement, but it would -- apparently the
18 drafters of the license were contemplating, if
19 immediate remedial action is taken in the
20 following way, the government won't treat it as a
21 violation. I admit, it is an unusual clause, it
22 essentially says 847.5, well, as long as you
23 immediately bring it down after that, we won't
24 really treat it as a violation. It doesn't say
25 that specifically, but I think that's how it is
6233
1 being interpreted between Manitoba Hydro or
2 Manitoba Conservation and the Manitoba Government,
3 and it creates a broad -- a clear ambiguity. I
4 mean, between the two of us, we are going, how can
5 you interpret it? That's why one of the reasons
6 why one of our recommendations is review this and
7 get it clear.
8 It is the same with the license
9 governing Missi Falls. It calls for flows to be
10 the same as were conducted during a period of
11 time, for 15 years approximately, something like
12 that. It doesn't specify in the license what
13 those flows are. So, how can you ever ensure
14 compliance with those flows?
15 Manitoba Hydro has stated that they
16 determine what the actual flow numbers are and
17 that -- and there is no compliance or follow up to
18 ensure that that is actually an appropriate
19 number, that the government has been involved in
20 setting that, that it is according to criteria
21 other than what Manitoba Hydro sees as reasonable.
22 Our recommendations are to clarify
23 some of these clear ambiguities.
24 MR. ABRA: Okay. I certainly
25 understand the point you are making. What caused
6234
1 me concern this morning -- and I am not saying
2 you're wrong. I just want to know whether or not
3 my interpretation is wrong because maybe it is.
4 When you use the term "violation," that to me in
5 essence means that there has been a breach.
6 Over the noon hour when I read section
7 9 of the interim license for CRD, it says it is
8 not to reach a maximum of any more than 847. If
9 it does, then you are to operate Missi Falls and
10 the Notigi control stations in such a manner, is
11 the word, that ultimately it will come down. It
12 doesn't say "immediate," for example. You used
13 the word "immediate," it doesn't say immediate.
14 MR. DUBOFF: Mr. Abra, it is probably
15 worth noting, I had quoted before from schedule D
16 of the agreement between CASIL and Manitoba
17 Hydro --
18 MR. ABRA: We don't have a copy of
19 that.
20 MR. DUBOFF: If I can read a sentence
21 from that. The first sentence, the preamble
22 reads:
23 "The Augmented Flow Program is a
24 permitted deviation from the Churchill
25 River Diversion interim license
6235
1 whereby Manitoba Hydro is authorized
2 for the period of May 16th, in the
3 relevant year, to May 15th in the
4 immediately succeeding year to permit
5 the maximum water of Southern Indian
6 Lake to be increase from elevation 847
7 to 847.5 feet."
8 It goes on to say some other deviations, and then
9 it says,
10 "...provided that..."
11 and point 2 is the one I read which said:
12 "Manitoba Hydro agrees to terminate
13 its program and decrease diversion
14 flow to appropriate levels if at any
15 time it appears that the above noted
16 conditions may be violated."
17 So, it appears that what this is
18 saying is that if you even appear to be getting
19 close to that level, you're going to stop your
20 operations. This is the agreement the community
21 of South Indian Lake, CASIL saw, which said that
22 your maximum level -- it uses the word maximum
23 level. Then it goes on to say, if this may be
24 violated, they agree to terminate their operation.
25 MR. ABRA: Okay, that clarifies it.
6236
1 One other point for the record, the
2 Augmented Flow Program, what we presently have,
3 the April 24th, 2003 issue, but point number 1
4 there talks about permitting the maximum water
5 level of South Indian Lake to be increased from
6 elevation 847 to 847.5.
7 Now, on my reading of that letter, I
8 interpret that to mean that, in essence, clause 9
9 in the CRD interim license is increased from 847
10 to 847.5, but the other provisions of section 9 in
11 the interim license for CRD remain the same. Do
12 you agree with that or do you disagree?
13 MS. PHARE: Just one moment, please.
14 We read that differently than you do. We believe
15 that the Augmented Flow Program's annual approval
16 makes it clear that the movement from 847 to 847.5
17 is a definitive maximum. And the reason we
18 believe that, as stated by Mr. Duboff, is because
19 there is another clause in the Augmented Flow
20 Program approval that says if you go over, you
21 terminate.
22 MR. ABRA: Where is that clause? I
23 don't see it.
24 MS. PHARE: The one that Mr. Duboff
25 just read.
6237
1 MR. ABRA: That's in the agreement --
2 MS. PHARE: Um-hmm.
3 MR. ABRA: -- between CASIL and Hydro,
4 which is what appears to be almost a third
5 phrasing of the same thing. What I am asking you
6 for is your position with respect to the augmented
7 flow, leaving aside for a moment the agreement
8 that I have now just received a copy of, that was
9 apparently signed by CASIL and Hydro, but I am
10 just wondering based upon the interim license as
11 it is issued each year by the Province --
12 MS. PHARE: I don't have a copy of
13 what you're referring to. I am not sure what you
14 have in your hand. It is just the annual approval
15 is what you're reading?
16 MR. ABRA: It is the annual approval.
17 I think it is the same every year, isn't it?
18 MS. PHARE: Yes -- no, in fact,
19 condition number 2 in this approval states:
20 "Manitoba Hydro agrees to terminate
21 its program and decrease diversion
22 flow to appropriate levels."
23 So, you can interpret that as meaning
24 decrease -- terminate, but really not terminate,
25 just decrease, and we interpret it as meaning
6238
1 terminate.
2 MR. ABRA: All I am asking, Ms. Phare,
3 is do you agree that the 847.5 that is
4 contemplated in condition number 1 of the
5 Augmented Flow Program varies condition number 9
6 in the CRD interim license from 847 to 847.5, but
7 because there is no reference made in that AFP
8 interim license, that the balance of the condition
9 9 in the CRD interim license remains the same?
10 Now, if you want to take it under advisement and
11 provide us with your position later, you can. I
12 just want to know for sure what your position is?
13 MS. PHARE: Okay, we will take that
14 under advisement.
15
16 (UNDERTAKING #86: Provide CASIL's position
17 re condition 1 of AFP varying condition 1 of CRD)
18
19 MR. ABRA: Thank you. Now, the next
20 issue -- you made the comment this morning, Les
21 Dysart, that the interim license for the Churchill
22 River Diversion requires that the water levels
23 must be taken from specific benchmark and you said
24 that is the benchmark that is underwater.
25 MR. L. DYSART: It currently is
6239
1 underwater and that benchmark, it is my
2 understanding, was replaced by the Canada Water
3 Survey benchmark 06 -- the actual reference number
4 is 06EC001, I think. That, I understand, replaced
5 the benchmark that is underwater where the levels
6 would be taken. It is in the same general --
7 MR. ABRA: Are you saying that
8 benchmark is supposed to be the same benchmark
9 that is used every year for the purposes of
10 measuring all of the water levels and so on?
11 MR. L. DYSART: It is my understanding
12 that is what the license says and that is what our
13 agreement says, the one benchmark.
14 MR. ABRA: I see.
15 MR. L. DYSART: It is very clear.
16 MR. ABRA: Again, on my reading of
17 section 21 of the CRD interim license, that that
18 benchmark was established for the purposes of the
19 interim license when it was originally issued, or
20 the interim license when it was originally issued
21 back in May of 1973, but that section 21
22 contemplates that that benchmark can change, and
23 that you don't have to use that same benchmark
24 every year, whether it is underwater or not?
25 Again, if you wish to take that under advisement,
6240
1 please do, or give an undertaking to respond at a
2 later time. I just want to know exactly what you
3 are concerned about with it being underwater?
4 MR. L. DYSART: The one that is
5 underwater, is that -- in relation to your
6 question --
7 MR. ABRA: It wasn't underwater when
8 it was originally established as the benchmark I
9 assume?
10 MR. L. DYSART: Yes.
11 MR. ABRA: Once it was established as
12 the benchmark, section 21 contemplates that new
13 benchmarks can be set as long as they are based on
14 that benchmark when the CRD interim license was
15 first issued back in 1973.
16 MR. L. DYSART: That's what happened,
17 and it was replaced by the one benchmark which is
18 the Canada Water Survey benchmark, 06 --
19 MR. ABRA: Do I understand you then,
20 you're not raising a concern about the spot where
21 the original benchmark had to be established is
22 now underwater?
23 MR. L. DYSART: It is in effect
24 destroyed by being underwater, so the Canada Water
25 Survey, the one benchmark replaced that one.
6241
1 MR. ABRA: Okay. Is that a problem
2 for you or not?
3 MS. PHARE: No.
4 MR. L. DYSART: No.
5 MR. ABRA: Okay. When you made the
6 comment this morning about it being under water,
7 Mr. Farlinger and I interpreted it to mean that
8 you were concerned about that and we were
9 wondering why.
10 MR. L. DYSART: Well, overall, things
11 being under water usually are a problem, but we
12 are very clear that --
13 MR. ABRA: That may very well be, but
14 as far as it being the benchmark is concerned,
15 that doesn't cause you concern?
16 MR. L. DYSART: Our understanding is
17 that it is being replaced by the one benchmark
18 that is referenced in the agreement.
19 MR. ABRA: Okay, thank you.
20 MR. L. DYSART: I think it even refers
21 to it as "destroyed" in the language of our
22 agreement. Yeah.
23 MR. ABRA: Now, the chart that you
24 tendered this morning is CASIL 1009, where you
25 show the maximum levels and minimum levels. You
6242
1 were given this by Manitoba Hydro as part of the
2 interrogatory process, is that when you first
3 received it or does CASIL receive this on a
4 regular basis?
5 MR. L. DYSART: Is that the reports?
6 MR. ABRA: Yes. The reports related
7 to the maximum and minimum levels at the various
8 points of measurement on South Indian Lake.
9 MR. L. DYSART: The values are from
10 the Canada Water Survey and they are not submitted
11 by anyone to CASIL, or South Indian Lake.
12 MR. ABRA: You didn't get them from
13 Hydro as part of the interrogatories process?
14 MR. L. DYSART: Those specifically,
15 no, I don't think --
16 MR. ABRA: So, you have access to
17 those on a regular basis, do you, if you want it?
18 MS. PHARE: These numbers are on the
19 Canada Water Survey website.
20 MR. ABRA: Okay. So, you have access
21 to them obviously through the website whenever you
22 want them?
23 MS. PHARE: Anybody who has internet
24 would have that, yes.
25 MR. ABRA: Now, there are various
6243
1 points of measurement on South Indian Lake, from
2 what I understand?
3 MR. L. DYSART: We believe there is
4 only one. Various points may be used, but --
5 MR. ABRA: You believe there is only
6 one?
7 MR. L. DYSART: One that is to be
8 used.
9 MR. ABRA: Which one is that?
10 MR. L. DYSART: Canada Water Survey
11 benchmark 06CE001.
12 MR. ABRA: I see. It is your position
13 that only that benchmark is to apply as far as the
14 measurements are concerned?
15 MR. L. DYSART: That is what is
16 articulated in our agreement, yes.
17 MR. ABRA: I see. Where in your
18 agreement is that?
19 MR. L. DYSART: It is referenced on, I
20 think schedule F -- yes, schedule F actually shows
21 a sketch of station location and the description
22 of the station, station number --
23 MR. ABRA: We don't seem to have a
24 copy of that schedule.
25 The reason I ask is, I am informed by
6244
1 our engineering consultants that it is quite
2 common for the purposes of measuring maximum and
3 minimum water levels on a lake, such as South
4 Indian Lake, to have various gauges located at
5 various spots, because the levels differ
6 significantly from gauge to gauge or from spot to
7 spot depending upon wind and wave action, and that
8 there may be a significant difference from one
9 benchmark to another -- excuse me, from one gauge
10 to another gauge for measurement because of wind
11 and wave action, and it is quite common as a
12 result to average out the various different gauges
13 for measurement in order to reach the mean of all
14 of them because of that wind and wave action; is
15 that -- do you not accept that?
16 MR. L. DYSART: Our position is there
17 is only one benchmark to be utilized in the
18 measurement of the levels of South Indian Lake.
19 That's the benchmark identified in our agreement.
20 And it is my understanding that the original CRD
21 license does not contemplate using more
22 benchmarks.
23 MR. ABRA: I see. If all of the
24 gauges are set from that one benchmark, and there
25 is a variance from the other gauges that have been
6245
1 set from that one benchmark, does the average not
2 seem acceptable in view of wind and wave action?
3 MR. L. DYSART: No, it doesn't. I
4 mean, there is one benchmark. This is what we
5 agreed, the Province agreed, Manitoba Hydro agreed
6 to use.
7 MR. ABRA: Do you understand that
8 these measurements in Exhibit 1009, that you have
9 tendered this morning, are they wind eliminated or
10 are they not or do you know?
11 MR. L. DYSART: The Canada Water
12 Survey says they are wind eliminated.
13 MR. ABRA: So, they are?
14 MR. L. DYSART: It is our
15 understanding they are.
16 MR. DUBOFF: Mr. Abra, if I can just
17 direct you -- and we may want you a copy of this
18 agreement -- is that under the definitions of ASL,
19 under the agreement beings it means above sea
20 level, and where references are made to the level
21 of Southern Indian Lake ASL, those measurements
22 refer to elevations based on either or both
23 benchmark number 2, which is an inland waters
24 brass benchmark, and/or benchmark number 8, which
25 was established to replace benchmark number 2 and
6246
1 which is a brass cap.
2 As I understand it, and I might be
3 wrong, benchmark number 8 is the only one left and
4 that is the one that Mr. Dysart referring to.
5 MR. ABRA: Are they shown on the
6 diagram, Mr. Duboff?
7 MR. DUBOFF: Yes, they are.
8 MR. ABRA: So, we will know where they
9 are when you give us a copy of the schedule?
10 MR. DUBOFF: Yes.
11 MR. ABRA: Okay. Thank you.
12 Just one final question. This morning
13 in your submission, Mr. Les Dysart, you raised a
14 number of concerns about information that CASIL
15 has not been receiving from Hydro that you think
16 it should be receiving, and you're not receiving
17 information, or there doesn't seem to be adequate
18 communication from the Water Stewardship Branch of
19 Manitoba Conservation, and you don't know what
20 reports they are receiving or what they are doing,
21 if they are finding variances from what -- with
22 respect to the flow levels at Notigi and Missi
23 Falls, for example. Did I understand that to be
24 your position, that you are just not getting the
25 information that you think you should be getting,
6247
1 or you don't know what is being done about
2 variances or violations, as you call them?
3 MR. L. DYSART: It is my understanding
4 that information is received by the community, but
5 it is sent to the community council, and they do
6 not receive any information other than the smooth
7 monthly reports, and there has been no indication
8 that -- we have tried to get that.
9 MR. ABRA: Sorry, go ahead.
10 MR. L. DYSART: Yeah, the information
11 the community receives is the smooth averages. We
12 don't receive the daily instantaneous levels. I
13 don't think anybody does.
14 MR. ABRA: Now, these concerns that
15 you have expressed -- and you have expressed a
16 number of concerns this morning, I don't want to
17 go through them all, they are on the record. In
18 essence, what you're saying was there was a lack
19 of information received by South Indian Lake, or
20 specifically the community of South Indian Lake,
21 from Hydro and from Water Conservation and so on.
22 Have you raised those concerns with Manitoba Hydro
23 or with Water Conservation about the lack of
24 information that you are receiving?
25 MR. L. DYSART: Specifically with
6248
1 these specific violations to date, no. But
2 concerns have been raised by the community in the
3 past with Manitoba Hydro, or representatives of
4 Manitoba Hydro, at various times throughout the
5 years, I guess I will use. But each time they
6 said we are not above where we are supposed to be
7 or below where we are supposed to be.
8 The reason I say that is one that
9 sticks in my mind was the flood of the century, in
10 1997. That was a huge flood down south here, but
11 that had an impact on us on water levels. Our
12 water levels were fairly high for a long period of
13 time and it drew much concern from community
14 residents and we talked to Manitoba Hydro. I
15 wasn't in the meeting myself, but representatives
16 of the community and we said you are at your
17 maximum. At that time, they weren't. They were
18 right in that instance. They weren't at their
19 maximum, but the duration they were close to the
20 maximum was for an extended period of time, and in
21 our opinion actually reversed the flow of the lake
22 back to its original direction.
23 So, it has been raised, but each time
24 Manitoba Hydro has stated that they have never
25 been in violation of the agreement or their
6249
1 maximum/minimum water levels.
2 MR. ABRA: You don't accept that?
3 MR. L. DYSART: No.
4 MR. ABRA: What about Manitoba
5 Conservation, have you raised it with them at all?
6 You have indicated that they are getting reports.
7 You have said, for example, at page 11 of your
8 second submission this morning, you raised the
9 question, does Manitoba Hydro advise to
10 Government? And you don't know what weekly
11 reports are being provided and is Manitoba
12 Conservation receiving the same reports as you
13 receive, or are they receiving different reports?
14 These are basically rhetorical questions that you
15 asked in your submission this morning.
16 Have you ever raised that issue with
17 Water Stewardship or asked them for what reports
18 they have received?
19 MR. L. DYSART: Merrell-Ann Phare has
20 raised that quite recently, those questions to
21 Manitoba Conservation.
22 MR. ABRA: How recently is recent?
23 MS. PHARE: In the course of these
24 hearings.
25 MR. ABRA: Okay. Prior to that, had
6250
1 that issue ever been raised to your knowledge?
2 MR. L. DYSART: In regards to the
3 community, no, but it has been an area of concern.
4 I mean, we have discussions about this and it is
5 an obvious area of concern for our community about
6 high and low water levels, and we talk about like
7 where is the Province in all this?
8 MR. ABRA: I am not attempting to
9 challenge the evidence that you gave this morning.
10 All I am doing is asking -- you have raised a
11 number of concerns about -- you have raised a
12 number of issues this morning about the concerns
13 in your community about the maximum and minimum
14 water levels. And you have said -- you have said
15 this morning that it has been raised, or at least
16 you don't know whether it has been raised with
17 Hydro or Water Stewardship. That's what I am
18 asking you that if these concerns have existed for
19 some time as you said they have, have you drawn it
20 to the attention of the others that you were
21 talking about this morning in your submission?
22 MS. PHARE: Mr. Abra, I would like to
23 step in for a moment here. Up until these
24 hearings, CASIL was not aware that there were any
25 concerns. They had responses from their community
6251
1 members that were very worried about the way the
2 water levels were being operated, but only -- as
3 Les has pointed out, they didn't know for sure --
4 only in the process of these hearings have they
5 had the resources or access to any expertise that
6 could begin to even look at that issue.
7 MR. ABRA: Okay. I wondered if it was
8 the case, that it is only since these hearings
9 that some of the issues have come to your
10 attention that have been mentioned this morning.
11 MS. PHARE: That is in terms of coming
12 to my attention. The community has long expressed
13 concern about the operations of the Augmented Flow
14 and the CRD, and they have expressed them to both
15 the Government, as I understand, and Manitoba
16 Hydro.
17 MR. ABRA: Have they been raised at
18 all with the Chief and Council of NCN?
19 MR. L. DYSART: Not to my knowledge,
20 no.
21 MR. ABRA: Okay, that's fine. Mr.
22 Chairman, members of the Commission, I have no
23 other questions. Thank you.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Other
25 questions? No further questions? Ms. Valerie
6252
1 Matthews Lemieux.
2 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: What I wanted
3 to just start out with is to have you help us
4 clarify who you are appearing on behalf of and who
5 the SIL leadership is, because sometimes I think
6 there is confusion over who all is representing
7 whom in South Indian Lake. So, could you just
8 start by explaining -- CASIL, as I understand it,
9 is a non-profit corporation; is that right?
10 MR. L. DYSART: Could you be more
11 specific and define your definition of leadership
12 so I can better answer the question?
13 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Sure. Let's
14 just take it one step at a time. CASIL is a
15 non-profit corporation; is that correct?
16 MR. L. DYSART: It is non-share.
17 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. Who are
18 members of CASIL?
19 MR. L. DYSART: Members of CASIL are,
20 generally speaking, the residents of the community
21 of the South Indian Lake that have been impacted
22 by the CRD.
23 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. The 1992
24 agreement was entered into by CASIL on behalf of
25 or for compensation for those members then?
6253
1 MR. L. DYSART: Simply put, yes.
2 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. Now,
3 there is also the Trappers Association; is that
4 correct? Is there a Trappers Association in South
5 Indian Lake?
6 MR. L. DYSART: I think many
7 communities have a Trappers Association. South
8 Indian Lake has one also.
9 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Are the
10 Trappers Association, are they connected to or in
11 some way part of CASIL?
12 MR. L. DYSART: I am a member of the
13 Trappers Association, as are many members. There
14 is overlap, there is no --
15 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Then the
16 Fishers Association, William is the president of
17 the Fishers Association; is that right?
18 MR. W. DYSART: Yes.
19 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: There is a
20 headman position?
21 MR. L. DYSART: Correct.
22 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: The headman
23 position, let's talk about it for a minute. That
24 was a position that was appointed by NCN Chief and
25 Council historically; is that correct?
6254
1 MR. L. DYSART: Mr. Baker, the headman
2 of South Indian Lake, it is my understanding will
3 be making a presentation in front of the
4 Commission, and perhaps questions pertaining
5 directly to the headman position might be better
6 answered through him.
7 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. But I
8 can certainly ask Mr. Baker questions, but is it
9 your understanding that Chief and Council used to
10 appoint the headman position?
11 MR. L. DYSART: From my understanding
12 in history, that wasn't the case.
13 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: You know Tommy
14 Spence?
15 MR. L. DYSART: Yes, I do.
16 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: And Tommy
17 Spence used to be the headman; is that correct?
18 MR. L. DYSART: At one time, yes.
19 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: He was
20 appointed by Chief and Council; is that correct?
21 MR. L. DYSART: I would have to check
22 on that and I am sure Mr. Spence would have an
23 opinion on that.
24 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Are you aware
25 the position of headman was abolished for some
6255
1 period of time?
2 MR. L. DYSART: Abolished by who?
3 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: By Chief and
4 Council?
5 MR. L. DYSART: In respect to South
6 Indian Lake?
7 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Yes.
8 MR. L. DYSART: Do you have any
9 documentation to verify this?
10 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I am just
11 asking if you are aware of that?
12 MR. L. DYSART: I am not aware of any
13 reference to that, but I would like from the
14 Commission a ruling on the relevancy on the
15 headman position South Indian Lake in respect to
16 Wuskwatim and our presentation.
17 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: The headman
18 position -- maybe I can could just speak for a
19 sec -- the headman of O-Pipon-Na-Piwin has been;
20 given status in these proceedings.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct, but as
22 Mr. Dysart has indicated, perhaps you can come
23 back to those questions through Mr. Baker.
24 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I am going
25 there.
6256
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
2 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: The headman
3 position has been elected more recently, is that
4 correct, at the time Chief and Council elections
5 are held?
6 MR. L. DYSART: Should I answer this
7 question?
8 THE CHAIRMAN: If you know the answer.
9 MR. L. DYSART: He has been elected,
10 yes.
11 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: The elections
12 for headman are held at the same time as Chief and
13 Council elections; is that right?
14 MR. DUBOFF: It seems to me that these
15 questions are probably before the headman. The
16 headman is going to be appearing here. These
17 appear to be properly for the headman. Mr. Dysart
18 is here for the Community Association of South
19 Indian Lake.
20 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: He is a person
21 who lives in South Indian Lake and who is
22 appearing to bring forward concerns on behalf the
23 community of South Indian Lake. And I am trying
24 to go through and determine who he is representing
25 and who he is here on behalf of, in terms of the
6257
1 Community of South Indian Lake.
2 MR. DUBOFF: Mr. Dysart has made it
3 clear, he is here representing the Community
4 Association of South Indian Lake, and this body
5 has the privilege of having the headman, who will
6 be appearing here and all of these questions can
7 properly be put to him.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct. I
9 take that point as valid, Ms. Matthews Lemieux.
10 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. You did
11 indicate in your evidence this morning, Les, that
12 90 percent of the residents at South Indian Lake
13 are NCN members; is that correct?
14 MR. L. DYSART: The general
15 population?
16 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Yes, at South
17 Indian Lake.
18 MR. L. DYSART: That's an approximate
19 number. Throughout these hearings there has been
20 I guess three different sets of data that was
21 generated by Manitoba Hydro and Nelson House to
22 that effect. We are not here to dispute the
23 number. It is an approximate number of NCN band
24 members in South Indian.
25 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. The vast
6258
1 majority are NCN members who live in South Indian
2 Lake; you would agree with that?
3 MR. L. DYSART: Yes.
4 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: NCN members
5 living at South Indian Lake have the right to
6 participate in Chief and Council elections; is
7 that correct?
8 MR. L. DYSART: It is my
9 understanding, yes.
10 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Just to go back
11 to the SIL leadership, could you just explain to
12 us who would be included within the leadership
13 groups at South Indian Lake?
14 MR. L. DYSART: Again, I would ask for
15 some clarification on that, to answer it regarding
16 your definition in that context of leadership.
17 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Is there a
18 group called the SIL leadership group?
19 MR. L. DYSART: Not specifically, no.
20 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Do the
21 president of the Trappers Association, the Fishers
22 Association, the Headman, the President of CASIL,
23 yourself as executive director, and
24 representatives of Mayor and Council meet as a
25 group to discuss various concerns about, for
6259
1 example, the Wuskwatim project?
2 MR. L. DYSART: Not specifically on
3 the Wuskwatim project -- the various groups you
4 have listed. There are various specific groups in
5 the community with, I guess, different mandates,
6 if you will. And we do sit and talk about various
7 issues and how we can assist each other or even
8 just have a discussion about various issues, but
9 not specific to Wuskwatim, no.
10 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: This morning
11 you also mentioned that there was a meeting that
12 Mike Dumas had held with a group of the leaders in
13 the community.
14 MR. L. DYSART: That is a
15 misunderstanding. Mike Dumas attended a meeting
16 with the Community Association of South Indian
17 Lake board members. I will try and get the date
18 for you, if you like, or maybe it is not relevant.
19 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: And were there
20 other people in attendance such as representatives
21 of the Mayor and Council?
22 MR. L. DYSART: Not the one I am
23 referring to, no.
24 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. Have you
25 had meetings with Mr. Dumas that are not the ones
6260
1 that you're referring to, but other ones, for
2 example, in November of 2002, that included
3 representatives of all of the what I will loosely
4 refer to as the leadership group?
5 MR. L. DYSART: November 2002, I can't
6 recall -- if you could give me more detail, I
7 might be able to answer.
8 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I am advised
9 that in November of 2002 there was a meeting with
10 the directors, and that the directors also include
11 people who are part of the -- or they were also in
12 attendance representatives of the Mayor and
13 Council, the Fishermen's Association, and the
14 Trappers Association and there was a presentation
15 by Mike Dumas about the Wuskwatim project to that
16 group?
17 MR. L. DYSART: In all honesty, I
18 can't recall that specific meeting. Mike Dumas is
19 a member of our community and in different
20 capacities he has attended various meetings within
21 the community. I might not able to disagree with
22 you, but the only meeting I can recall in November
23 of 2002, subject to check, was the community
24 meeting specific to the reserve issues.
25 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Do you remember
6261
1 raising any concerns in a meeting with Mr. Dumas
2 about the Wuskwatim project, and Mr. Dumas trying
3 to make arrangements for meetings to be held --
4 community meetings to be held in South Indian Lake
5 with representatives of Hydro and NCN to discuss
6 the concerns that members had?
7 MR. L. DYSART: Again, as part of
8 my -- I think it was a question I was answering
9 myself. I have talked with Mike Dumas a number of
10 times, almost daily. We talk about various issues
11 in general and, yes, I have talked with Mike Dumas
12 about concerns about Wuskwatim. There has been
13 references made to meetings, and one of them we
14 did have with representatives of the Chief and
15 Council in Thompson, and Mr. Thomas was present at
16 that meeting.
17 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: My question was
18 do you recall Mr. Dumas attempting to arrange on a
19 number of occasions meetings with the community of
20 South Indian Lake to go over the concerns that
21 they raised at this meeting -- that were raised at
22 this meeting in November about the Wuskwatim
23 project?
24 MR. L. DYSART: Subject to the content
25 of the agenda, if you will, to the meeting in
6262
1 November, which I can't specifically recall, but
2 there has been various times where meetings have
3 been arranged.
4 One I can recall where the community
5 meeting we had, specifically the reserve issue,
6 Councillor David Spence was there and we did
7 postpone a meeting that was supposed to take place
8 with, I think, the future development team with
9 the agreement of Councillor David Spence. We have
10 had different discussions, myself and Mr. Mike
11 Dumas, regarding arranging other meetings.
12 I think, again, you could ask these
13 questions specific to Mr. Baker, the Headman. I
14 think one meeting was cancelled by Chief and
15 Council because of a gathering in Saskatchewan or
16 something like that. To answer your question,
17 there has been various discussions, yes.
18 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: You will agree
19 that there were attempts made to arrange meetings
20 on more than one occasion?
21 MR. L. DYSART: With me and Mike
22 Dumas, yes. I can't speak for other entities in
23 the community. You would have to ask Mike Dumas.
24 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: In terms of the
25 survey that you provided, the information about
6263
1 the survey in your presentation, I just wanted to
2 ask one question. There were some documents that
3 were filed earlier by Ms. Phare in February as
4 part of CASIL's submission. I am just trying to
5 clarify, from the summary of the interview
6 workshop participants document that was filed in
7 February, it indicates that there were 11 people
8 who completed the surveys from what I see in the
9 materials. Was I to understand your evidence this
10 morning there were actually 20?
11 MR. L. DYSART: Yeah, I think when
12 that was submitted, subject to --
13 MS. HARDESS: Interviews were still
14 ongoing when we submitted that.
15 MR. L. DYSART: That was the first, I
16 guess -- or I hate to use the word "attempt", but
17 for lack of a better word, attempt, and that was
18 the first phase, if you will, of the interview and
19 gathering of information -- first step, maybe.
20 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. So,
21 between February and today, then there were an
22 additional nine people who were interviewed; is
23 that what you're telling us?
24 MR. L. DYSART: Yeah, the ones that
25 were finished, I mean, we have had discussions
6264
1 with other people, but we didn't want to provide
2 other incomplete -- to clarify that, myself, I had
3 a concern, let's get more information, but the
4 hearings were starting in March and we didn't want
5 to be submitting, I guess, the interviews after
6 that.
7 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Can you tell us
8 how the people were chosen who were interviewed?
9 MR. L. DYSART: This was done through
10 discussion with CIER representatives and also
11 members of my board on who we should ask, just due
12 to some time constraints. An obvious choice is
13 let's go see our elders and the people who have
14 experience with before, after and during the
15 Manitoba Hydro development projects, such as the
16 CRD. We tried to develop a pool. The list was
17 quite extensive on who we should target.
18 Actually, like for the record, a number of people
19 did not want to participate for various reasons,
20 one of them being just the effect of Manitoba
21 Hydro operation is so profound in our community
22 that people don't want to talk about these things
23 any more. They have experienced times when Hydro
24 or representatives of other governments have come
25 in and said, we want to talk to you. They took
6265
1 that as, well, okay, here's my feelings and
2 sometimes those feelings are totally ignored or
3 used inappropriately.
4 To answer your question, that list was
5 quite extensive and then a number of people were
6 asked, some did refuse for various reasons and the
7 remaining 20 did participate in the interview
8 process.
9 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Was there any
10 attempt to have like a random sampling technique
11 used?
12 MS. HARDESS: It was meant to be a
13 representative sample. I think there was a slide
14 that Les talked about on this specifically, that
15 we targeted resource users for it, so it was not
16 meant to be a representative sample size.
17 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. Were you
18 provided with a copy of the opinion survey that
19 was conducted among members residing in South
20 Indian Lake? The date of that report was dated
21 December 1st, 2001, and it has been filed in the
22 EIS materials. Were you provided with a copy of
23 that prior to developing your survey?
24 MS. HARDESS: I realize that it is in
25 the EIS. I didn't use it. CIER didn't use it
6266
1 when we developed our questionnaire. We tried to
2 think, using other examples of past research, what
3 kind of questions would we ask if we were going
4 into a community and wanted to know what the
5 effects were that they were experiencing right
6 now, and what their predictions would be for a
7 project that they were well aware of, but we
8 didn't provide information on in the future.
9 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Do you recall
10 what percentage though that the water levels were
11 going to rise on South Indian Lake due to
12 Wuskwatim? Do you recall how many thought that?
13 MS. HARDESS: Was that in the
14 presentation?
15 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: That's what I
16 understood from the material. Correct me if I am
17 wrong -- I haven't seen the report, of course, but
18 from the presentation?
19 MR. L. DYSART: Let me see if I can
20 find the relevant slide.
21 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I was trying to
22 listen to it as well as read it this morning.
23 MR. L. DYSART: Do you have a slide
24 number?
25 MS. HARDESS: There isn't actually a
6267
1 slide that specifically asks that question. We do
2 have all the questions in the report, which we
3 will provide as an undertaking so you can read all
4 the questions that were asked. These are a sample
5 of them. The questions that were listed in the
6 presentation relate to use of traditional lands,
7 how it will affect use for places that are sacred
8 to the community, how it will affect the wildlife,
9 how it will affect outdoor activities and cultural
10 activities and do you think these changes will
11 affect wildlife at South Indian Lake?
12 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: From the
13 information then that you obtained was there a
14 concern that water levels were going to rise on
15 South Indian Lake as a result of the Wuskwatim
16 project? It is actually -- thanks to Mr. Adkins
17 because I don't have my document it appears -- but
18 it was 34. It says:
19 "Concerns related to Wuskwatim
20 increase in surface water levels,
21 increased fluctuations, further loss
22 of shoreline, further decrease in
23 water quality."
24 And it is under a heading called, "Interview
25 Findings, Water."
6268
1 MS. HARDESS: That is a summary of the
2 comments -- people's comments to those questions
3 because, of course, they are open-ended questions.
4 So, after people say yes or no, there was an
5 opportunity for them to respond further. So,
6 those are taken from the further responses and all
7 of that is outlined in the full report as well.
8 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I gather you
9 have done the analysis, so out of the 20 people
10 who were interviewed, what percentage thought that
11 there was going to be an increase in South Indian
12 Lake as a result of Wuskwatim?
13 MS. HARDESS: I will have to provide
14 you with that because I don't have the full report
15 with me.
16 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: When will we be
17 getting the full report?
18 MS. HARDESS: I can get it tomorrow
19 actually. I didn't realize we were at this venue
20 and I was going to have it dropped off, so I will
21 have to provide it tomorrow.
22 MR. MAYER: Is the report at the
23 Radisson?
24 MS. HARDESS: No, but our office is
25 right around the corner, so I thought I would be
6269
1 able to go at lunch.
2 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: The one point I
3 would like to make is that we obviously have not
4 seen the report and we may have further questions
5 once we have had an opportunity to read that
6 report and the conclusions that are in it. I am
7 not sure how the Commission then wants to proceed
8 on this point?
9 MS. HARDESS: There weren't actually
10 any conclusions that were drawn from that report.
11 It was to provide the findings of the report.
12 MR. MAYER: Can we find out when this
13 report was completed?
14 MR. L. DYSART: As far as the specific
15 date of the report --
16 MR. MAYER: Yes.
17 MR. L. DYSART: The interviews I guess
18 were completed --
19 MR. MAYER: When was the document
20 completed, the document you're going to get us
21 tomorrow?
22 MS. HARDESS: I think it was completed
23 the beginning of May.
24 MR. MAYER: So, you have had this
25 document for three weeks?
6270
1 MS. HARDESS: Probably.
2 MR. L. DYSART: Yes. Your concern
3 there -- Ms. Hardess had said the report was
4 finished, but I am sure you can well understand
5 the amount of time that has taken place with these
6 hearings. I, myself, haven't had a chance to
7 review it. Again, it was just a summary of the
8 findings. There are no conclusions drawn on it
9 and there is no recommendations drawn on it.
10 MR. MAYER: Mr. Dysart, you heard what
11 the Commission had to say about when Canadian
12 Nature Federation kept arriving with their
13 documents at the last minute. Did you not
14 consider that if you had this document for this
15 long?
16 MR. L. DYSART: I didn't believe -- I
17 never really gave it that much thought, that this
18 would be -- that that specific document would be a
19 matter of contention. So, if I am at fault, I
20 apologize. It is my responsibility to have
21 directed Ms. Hardess to do that and I apologize.
22 There was no other intention by holding it.
23 MR. DUBOFF: I think it is important
24 to keep in mind the reason that this information
25 was presented. Mr. Dysart said in his
6271
1 presentation that the accuracy and the correctness
2 of the opinions of the person who he quoted here
3 was not agreed to by CASIL. In fact, CASIL
4 recognizes and they are not debating that there
5 will be no effect on the backwater effect on South
6 Indian Lake.
7 The Community Association of South
8 Indian Lake is not taking that position. Many of
9 the quotes that they have presented, they are
10 saying very clearly are not correct in engineering
11 or in science or in hydrology.
12 The reason that Mr. Dysart presented
13 the information is to show the mind-set of the
14 people using the resource. What Mr. Dysart said,
15 regardless of the merits and correctness of what
16 they are saying, he says these people need
17 information. This is their homes, psychology it
18 is affecting them.
19 Mr. Dysart is asking for better
20 information to come forward to the extent that
21 there have been meetings by Mr. Dumas, who is an
22 excellent person, a very articulate man, to that
23 extent the message has not come out, and people
24 are still confused. They don't have the message
25 correct.
6272
1 So, I respect very clearly what
2 Ms. Matthews Lemieux is stating. I think it is
3 relevant questioning, but it misses the point of
4 what this information was presented for. It is
5 simply to say that there are people who are
6 confused in the community and they need more and
7 better information.
8 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: If I could just
9 ask a couple other questions about the survey.
10 When were the interviews held?
11 MR. L. DYSART: Between January and
12 February of 2000 -- this year, 2004, March.
13 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: So, they were
14 completed by early March of 2004?
15 MR. L. DYSART: Yes, just a couple
16 months ago.
17 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Now, in terms
18 of the material that you had filed in February of
19 2004, on the third page, there was a question and
20 it is reporting on the cumulative effects
21 questionnaire. Number 3 said: "How do you think
22 the project will change the water levels in
23 Southern Indian Lake", and then there is a list of
24 responses: It would change the water level; yes,
25 they tell us so, but I am sure then the waters
6273
1 will be higher than before" and there is a list of
2 responses.
3 Are those the responses then to that
4 question?
5 MS. HARDESS: They are the responses
6 up to that date, yes.
7 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: So, up to that
8 date then, you had five people out of the 11 who
9 said that there will be increases on Southern
10 Indian Lake from Wuskwatim?
11 MS. HARDESS: If that's what it says,
12 then I agree with you. I don't have that in front
13 of me.
14 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Well, I will
15 show it to you.
16 MS. HARDESS: I would prefer to answer
17 that with all 20 responses. I think you are
18 looking at it based on 11. Again, what Mr. Duboff
19 mentioned earlier, we are not saying these people
20 are right or wrong, we are just presenting this as
21 their opinion.
22 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay, this is
23 material filed by Ms. Phare in February as part of
24 CASIL's materials. I have a couple of questions.
25 One is that it reflects -- first of all, who
6274
1 prepared it? Who prepared this document? And
2 then, secondly, if this reflects the responses to
3 the question at that point in time when the
4 document was done in February?
5 MS. HARDESS: The document was
6 prepared by CIER and it was accurate up until the
7 date it was filed. So, it reflects the 11 people
8 who participated up to this point.
9 MR. L. DYSART: I also note that the
10 interviews were ongoing at that point in time, and
11 again, subject to checking what you have in front
12 of you, but there was a time delay of getting
13 information into CIER -- the data bank, if you
14 will, in preparing for the final.
15 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I understand
16 though that it is being confirmed that this
17 document that I showed was prepared by CIER and
18 was part of the submission that your counsel sent
19 in in February; is that correct?
20 MR. L. DYSART: The summary?
21 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Yes, the
22 summary of the interviews?
23 MR. L. DYSART: At that point in time.
24 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. So, at
25 that point in time, five out of the 11 indicated
6275
1 that the project, being Wuskwatim, would change
2 the water levels on Southern Indian Lake?
3 MR. L. DYSART: Yeah, these are
4 people's opinions. If that's what the summary
5 says, then... .
6 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Do you know
7 what the basis for that conclusion was or that
8 opinion?
9 MR. L. DYSART: I don't want to try
10 and tell you what people are thinking. The
11 questions were asked and this is what they told
12 us. To the basis of those opinions, I can't
13 comment on that.
14 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Now, in terms
15 of the meetings that were held with Manitoba Hydro
16 and NCN, there were meetings that were held to --
17 in Winnipeg in the spring of 2003; do you recall
18 that?
19 MR. L. DYSART: The one meeting that
20 took place was February 5th, 2003, if that is the
21 one you're referring to?
22 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Sorry, late
23 winter, early spring?
24 MR. L. DYSART: There wasn't a series
25 of meetings, there was one meeting. You were
6276
1 present at that meeting, if I recall.
2 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Yeah, and you
3 were as well.
4 MR. L. DYSART: Yeah.
5 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. So, out
6 of that particular meeting, there were concerns
7 that were raised about the EIS documentation,
8 right?
9 MR. L. DYSART: Yes, there are, I
10 think, six hours of discussion about various
11 concerns. If you are singling one out, probably
12 yeah, there was.
13 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: But, that was
14 one -- and there was also a concern expressed by
15 the -- by the South Indian Lake representatives in
16 attendance that they wanted to have their own
17 technical expert review the EIS; is that correct?
18 MR. L. DYSART: Yeah, if I can recall
19 correctly, we made a specific request to Manitoba
20 Hydro that there be an independent review done of
21 the Environmental Impact Statement for South
22 Indian Lake.
23 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. And
24 funding was provided for SIL to retain an expert,
25 right?
6277
1 MR. L. DYSART: After months took
2 place -- five and a half months, I think, with
3 various correspondence going between Mr. Adkins
4 and Neil Duboff and various discussions, funding
5 was provided to the community to conduct a cursory
6 review of the EIS. It wasn't -- the funding
7 wasn't provided to the community of South Indian
8 Lake to do an in-depth review of the environmental
9 impact statement.
10 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Now, South
11 Indian Lake representatives were able to choose
12 who they wanted to retain to do that study; is
13 that correct?
14 MR. L. DYSART: Yes, the community --
15 the various groups gave input as to who would do
16 the cursory environmental review of the EIS, yes.
17 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Who were the
18 groups that had input into that?
19 MR. L. DYSART: Representatives of the
20 Trappers, the Community Council, South Lake
21 Fishermen's Association and also the Headman.
22 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: What about
23 CASIL?
24 MR. L. DYSART: Sorry, yeah.
25 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. And the
6278
1 group chose Duncan Associates Limited; is that
2 correct?
3 MR. L. DYSART: Yes.
4 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: That is
5 commonly known as "DAL"?
6 MR. L. DYSART: Yes, I think that's
7 their company.
8 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: The report was
9 initially to be provided in July of 2003; is that
10 correct?
11 MR. L. DYSART: Yeah, there were some
12 understandings there that should have been
13 provided. A series of meetings would have had to
14 been taking place. That deadline, I guess, was
15 not met. I had talked with -- well, Ryan Kustra,
16 a representative of Manitoba Hydro, about
17 some of the difficulties of meeting that deadline.
18 Again, I mean, the funding wasn't
19 approved and actually as far as yesterday, DAL
20 hasn't received payment for this report.
21 So, I mean there is a number of --
22 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay, there was
23 a request for additional information by Duncan and
24 Associates to Manitoba Hydro in September of 2003,
25 and there was some delay because that was not
6279
1 provided until December; is that correct?
2 MR. L. DYSART: You would have to be
3 more specific with the information and who the
4 discussion was with.
5 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Is it your
6 understanding that there were additional requests
7 by DAL for the information?
8 MR. L. DYSART: Subject to check,
9 probably. I would have to check on the specifics.
10 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. It is my
11 understanding from reading the DAL report -- which
12 I just received for the first time yesterday --
13 that, in fact, Duncan and Associates met with
14 South Indian Lake community leaders on February
15 5th, 2004 to discuss the Wuskwatim EIS and the
16 potential effects on South Indian Lake --
17 MR. L. DYSART: I think that was
18 February 25th.
19 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Sorry, if I
20 didn't say the 25th. The report does say February
21 25th, 2004. Okay. Who were the community leaders
22 that were in attendance at that meeting?
23 MR. L. DYSART: Names or just
24 representatives?
25 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Representative
6280
1 groups again would be fine.
2 MR. L. DYSART: Community Association,
3 the Community Council, Trappers Association, the
4 Fishermen's Association. The only representation
5 that was not there specifically was Headman Chris
6 Baker, but I did have dialogue with him and his
7 consultant, if you will, about any of their
8 concerns and they did forward to Duncan and
9 Associates any areas of concern they wanted
10 addressed.
11 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. So,
12 before the hearing started on March 1st, 2004, the
13 leadership in South Indian Lake was aware of the
14 conclusion of DAL, its independent consultant,
15 that there would be no backwater effect created by
16 Wuskwatim any further upstream than Early Morning
17 Rapids; is that correct?
18 MR. L. DYSART: I can't make an answer
19 yes or no on what people understood at that point
20 in time.
21 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: What did you
22 understand?
23 MR. L. DYSART: Just give me a moment.
24 It is our understanding, as far as
25 technical language, the EIS was based on
6281
1 assumption that there would be no changes. There
2 is various things that -- for instance,
3 recommendations out of the CEC panel might put
4 limitations on the Wuskwatim project and that
5 would change that assumption.
6 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Mr. Duncan
7 concluded that there would be no upstream effect
8 beyond Early Morning Rapids from the Wuskwatim
9 project; is that correct?
10 MR. L. DYSART: Let me just...
11 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I am looking at
12 page 2 of the report, second paragraph. I am not
13 sure, but I understand the commission has not
14 received it. As I said, we just received it
15 yesterday.
16 MS. AVERY KINEW: If we could get a
17 copy --
18 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Right, we can
19 do that. If you would like to take a break to
20 make sure the commission has it in front of them?
21 THE CHAIRMAN: We would like a copy of
22 the report.
23 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. I just
24 have to find a clean one because I have written on
25 my copy.
6282
1 THE CHAIRMAN: While this is being
2 done, maybe we can carry on with the other
3 questions or issues.
4 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Did you want me
5 to defer the questions on the report until you
6 have it in front of you or can I proceed with the
7 questions on the report?
8 THE CHAIRMAN: You can proceed.
9 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay, thank
10 you.
11 Okay, the question was then that
12 Mr. Duncan concluded that there would be no
13 further upstream effects beyond Early Morning
14 Rapids from the Wuskwatim project; is that
15 correct?
16 MR. L. DYSART: Sorry, I thought we
17 were deferring the questions, I misunderstood.
18 That's correct in the paragraph, but
19 one also has to read the whole report.
20 The fourth paragraph on the same page
21 also states:
22 "The only other way that water regime
23 changes could occur at locations
24 upstream of Early Morning Rapids would
25 be through changes in the operation of
6283
1 the CRD (Notigi/Missi Falls control
2 structures) itself. It is stated in
3 the fundamental design assumptions
4 that the operation of the CRD 'will
5 continue to operate in the future as
6 it operates today.' The EIS indicates
7 that the terms and condition of all
8 existing licenses and agreements will
9 be respected. However, while the CRD
10 and specifically Southern Indian Lake,
11 would be operated within their
12 licensed limits, the EIS is not clear
13 if changes to the operation inside
14 these limits would be made to maximize
15 system wide power generation once the
16 Wuskwatim Project is added to the
17 overall Manitoba Hydro generating
18 system. It would seem that the only
19 way one could be assured that the CRD
20 would be operated the same as it is
21 today is to use exactly the same
22 operational model/procedure that is
23 currently in use. This
24 model/procedure is used to determine
25 the amounts of water to store/release
6284
1 from all Manitoba Hydro generating
2 stations/reservoirs to satisfy a
3 number of operational objectives and
4 constraints. The EIS does not
5 describe the operational objectives
6 and constraints that govern the
7 present operation of the CRD. If the
8 parameters the Wuskwatim Generating
9 Station are excluded from the
10 operation model/procedure then one can
11 conclude that the CRD will be operated
12 the same as it would be if the
13 Wuskwatim Project were not
14 constructed, provided that all
15 existing objective and constraints
16 remain unchanged."
17 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Could you also
18 look at page 10 of the report under the heading
19 "Conclusions and Recommendations" and I have two
20 questions.
21 The first one relates to the first
22 paragraph. The last sentence of the first
23 paragraph again he concludes that:
24 "Due to the hydraulics of Early
25 Morning Rapids the backwater that will
6285
1 be created by the Wuskwatim forebay
2 will not extend any further upstream
3 than this location in either the open
4 water or winter seasons."
5 Do you see that?
6 MR. L. DYSART: I see it.
7 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: So, that was
8 his conclusion with respect to the effects of the
9 Wuskwatim project.
10 Now, with respect to --
11 MR. L. DYSART: Could I have a moment?
12 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Sure. Now,
13 with respect --
14 MR. L. DYSART: Like, I do see the
15 sentence you referred to, but if one looks further
16 down --
17 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Yeah, I am
18 going to get to that actually in a minute. I am
19 going to ask you questions about that in a minute,
20 if you could just bear with me.
21 MR. DUBOFF: You raised the question.
22 Mr. Dysart would like to respond to your comment.
23 You quoted something and Mr. Dysart would like to
24 put it in context.
25 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I said I was
6286
1 going to be asking two questions. The first
2 question asked about the effect beyond Early
3 Morning Rapids and he has answered that question.
4 I would like to go to the second paragraph and ask
5 you a question about that. You said you wanted to
6 refer to the rest of the conclusions.
7 Now, with respect to the second
8 paragraph, where he discusses the issue of the
9 operation of the CRD and the Augmented Flow
10 Program, was he provided with the transcripts from
11 this hearing before he wrote this report?
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Ms. Matthews
13 Lemieux, are you referring to the transcripts from
14 these hearings that started on the 1st of March?
15 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Yes, the
16 hearings that started on March 1st, and in
17 particular, Mr. Cormie's evidence. Was he
18 provided with copies of that evidence before he
19 completed his report which we received yesterday,
20 with respect the issues of operation?
21 MR. L. DYSART: We had a discussion
22 with Mr. Duncan yesterday and he did reference
23 transcripts of these hearings.
24 MS. PHARE: If I can add, he did state
25 that he reviewed the evidence of Dave Cormie, but
6287
1 we didn't ask him if it was all the evidence or
2 not. I would have to provide an undertaking to
3 you to ask him that question, if you want that.
4 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I would like to
5 know if he considered Mr. Cormie's evidence.
6 MS. PHARE: Well, as I said, he told
7 us that he considered Mr. Cormie's evidence, but
8 we don't know if it is the totality of everything
9 Dave Cormie said in front of this panel or just
10 what was said in cross-examination or what. So, I
11 can undertake to give you that answer. I don't
12 know what John Duncan was referring to when he
13 made the statement to us.
14 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. Did he
15 also, in terms of -- looking at the conclusions
16 that he drew, did he also have reference to the
17 responses to all of the interrogatories?
18 MS. PHARE: I can ask Mr. Duncan that.
19 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay, thank
20 you.
21
22 (UNDERTAKING #87: Inquire whether John Duncan
23 considered Mr. Cormie's evidence)
24
25 (UNDERTAKING #88: Inquire whether John Duncan had
6288
1 reference to the responses of all the
2 interrogatories)
3
4 MR. L. DYSART: I would just like to
5 further clarify one of my answers in respect to
6 the submission of this report.
7 Like I said, it was my understanding
8 up until yesterday John Duncan still did not
9 receive payment for this report and he had some
10 concern about payment for work done. We had
11 discussions about not releasing the report based
12 on that. I can understand his perspective on
13 how -- it has been almost a year.
14 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay, you're
15 saying it has been almost a year, so it is --
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Just a minute. I think
17 that is a negotiation issue that has to be pursued
18 outside of this hearing. How you get paid -- you
19 get your consultant paid or something like that, I
20 don't think it is --
21 MR. DUBOFF: With respect, I think the
22 point that Mr. Dysart was trying to make was that
23 it has been available for a short period of time,
24 I understand maybe a week or so. The only reason
25 he wouldn't release it is because -- he wouldn't
6289
1 release it because he wasn't being paid. That was
2 the reason for mentioning it.
3 It was suggested on a couple of
4 circumstances that it was being held back and it
5 only came yesterday, and our understanding is the
6 reason that that happened is because he wasn't
7 being paid.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, the point was
9 made. Thank you.
10 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I think we need
11 to clarify this point.
12 When was the report ready? Les, did
13 you say it was ready a year ago?
14 MR. L. DYSART: No, you misunderstood.
15 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: When was the
16 report ready?
17 MR. L. DYSART: Subject to check and
18 speaking to Mr. Duncan, it was dated May/04, but
19 myself, to even see the actual final report, it
20 was at least a week ago maybe. I don't think the
21 panel understands about the payment. I mean the
22 request was made a year ago, funding wasn't
23 approved until mid-June. So it is clear that we
24 didn't receive this funding. It was approved by
25 Hydro, but there has been some difficulty in
6290
1 Mr. Duncan receiving payment. I know I have
2 authorized a number of his invoices, it just
3 wasn't being paid.
4 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Mr. Duncan
5 though has received progress payments; is that not
6 correct?
7 MR. L. DYSART: I don't know, I would
8 have to ask him.
9 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: He has received
10 partial payment, has he not?
11 MR. L. DYSART: I would have to ask
12 him. In our discussion, he said he had concerns
13 about being paid.
14 MR. MAYER: Who withheld the report
15 because somebody wasn't paid? Did you withhold
16 the report or did he withhold the report from you?
17 MR. L. DYSART: I understand what
18 you're asking, Mr. Mayer, I just don't like the
19 context it is being asked. There has been
20 discussions about the report. The final report --
21 I guess as early as last week, the final report
22 was ready. There was no intention to withhold the
23 report.
24 MR. MAYER: Just a minute. Now you're
25 really confusing me, Mr. Dysart. I definitely
6291
1 heard somebody at that table say that part of the
2 reason the report wasn't released earlier is
3 because Duncan had concerns of payment. Didn't
4 somebody say that? Didn't you say that?
5 MR. L. DYSART: There was a draft
6 version of the completed report, which I didn't
7 receive in my possession until yesterday.
8 MR. MAYER: Or was it Mr. Duboff that
9 said there were concerns about payment and
10 somebody withheld the report. Did somebody say
11 that?
12 MS. PHARE: Counsel did not receive
13 the final report until yesterday.
14 MR. MAYER: So, am I then --
15 MS. PHARE: We have been asked by
16 Manitoba Hydro for, as has Duncan and Associates,
17 for a copy of the final report for some time now.
18 John Duncan expressed a concern to Les Dysart that
19 he didn't want to give the final report to
20 Manitoba Hydro until he had received final
21 payment, and we don't know if there were interim
22 payments or not. Les Dysart did not release the
23 report because he didn't receive the final report
24 until yesterday.
25 MR. MAYER: So then the answer to my
6292
1 question is that the report was withheld by Duncan
2 and Associates?
3 MS. PHARE: Yes.
4 MR. MAYER: Thank you. That's what I
5 wanted to know.
6 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I think we also
7 need to clarify, and perhaps Mr. Duboff can
8 clarify. The correspondence, as I recall it, and
9 I don't have it with me, the correspondence was
10 between, I believe, Mr. Adkins and yourself and
11 indicated that there would be half the payment
12 before the report was even started and then half
13 after the report was submitted; is that not
14 correct?
15 MR. DUBOFF: I don't recall. I have
16 not been involved, but -- if Mr. Adkins says so, I
17 certainly know Mr. Adkins and that would be
18 accurate. I don't doubt Mr. Adkins for a second.
19 I have not been in communication with Mr. Duncan
20 until yesterday when he was at my office to go
21 through this. At that point, that's what we were
22 advised when he gave us the final report. But,
23 having said that, the information that came to me
24 through Mr. Adkins, I certainly don't recall
25 giving that -- I don't recall it myself and I
6293
1 don't recall giving it to Mr. Duncan either.
2 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay.
3 Mr. Dysart -- Les Dysart -- you're aware that
4 there was a meeting on March 4th with Cam
5 MacInnes, NCN's engineer, and George Rempel, who
6 is an engineer on the environmental management
7 team, with Mr. Duncan to discuss the conclusions
8 that he had come to, you're aware of that meeting?
9 MR. L. DYSART: I am aware of a
10 meeting did take place. As to what specifically
11 was discussed, I wasn't made aware of the details
12 of that.
13 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. There
14 was no report then to you that, in fact, he had
15 communicated to Mr. MacInnes and to Mr. Rempel on
16 March 4th that his conclusion was that there would
17 be no effects from the Wuskwatim project beyond
18 Early Morning Rapids?
19 MR. L. DYSART: Again, specifically, I
20 was aware that a meeting took place, but I haven't
21 been provided the details or the report on that
22 meeting, no.
23 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: In terms of why
24 it took so long between March 4th or the meeting
25 that you had with him on February 25th and
6294
1 yesterday to prepare the report, you have no
2 information about why it took so long?
3 MR. L. DYSART: Sorry, repeat the
4 question.
5 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Yes. Do you
6 have any idea why it took so long then from your
7 meeting on February 25th, or even the meeting of
8 March 4th, for the report to be prepared in its
9 final form?
10 MR. L. DYSART: What I am aware of is
11 the draft report needed -- needed to be reviewed
12 by myself and members of -- or representatives of
13 the other organizations. Now, if you call that a
14 delay, I mean, that's the nature of doing
15 business. I mean, we needed to review it prior to
16 approval of a final report.
17 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. When was
18 the final report reviewed then with the other
19 representatives?
20 MR. L. DYSART: It was done over a
21 length of time, I guess, since -- well, if you
22 want to use March 4th as a date, between March 4th
23 and some time last week.
24 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. Has the
25 conclusions in the Duncan report been communicated
6295
1 to members in South Indian Lake?
2 MR. L. DYSART: They have been
3 provided of a copy of the draft report.
4 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: When were they
5 provided with a copy of the draft report?
6 MR. L. DYSART: I think my answer was
7 since some time last week.
8 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: So, there has
9 been a distribution of the DAL report in draft
10 form within the community of South Indian Lake?
11 MR. L. DYSART: Not the community as a
12 whole, the representatives of various
13 organizations.
14 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. Has
15 there been any information of the conclusions in
16 the DAL report provided to members of South Indian
17 Lake?
18 MR. L. DYSART: Again, Mr. Duboff told
19 you we just received the report yesterday also,
20 the final report and I have been here since
21 yesterday.
22 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: So, there was
23 no information provided to community members on
24 the basis of the draft report; is that correct?
25 MR. L. DYSART: The elected
6296
1 representatives of South Indian had the draft
2 report in their possession. Now, if they took it
3 further, you would have to ask them.
4 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. You,
5 with respect to CASIL members, did you take it any
6 further?
7 MR. L. DYSART: I took it to my
8 elected leadership.
9 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: And there was
10 no information about the conclusions provided then
11 to CASIL members?
12 MR. L. DYSART: All the members
13 specifically; is that the question?
14 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Yeah, to CASIL
15 members, um-hmm.
16 MR. L. DYSART: No, that wasn't the
17 intention of the report. I mean, we just received
18 the final report, again, yesterday. There is
19 danger in circulating draft documents.
20 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I have some
21 questions -- I was actually going to ask William
22 Dysart some questions. I don't know if you are
23 able to address these or not about the Fishers
24 following up from Mr. Mayer's questions this
25 morning. It William Dysart coming back?
6297
1 MR. L. DYSART: Yes, he is.
2 Mr. Chairman, I am just noticing the
3 time, it is quarter to 3:00. Is a break in order?
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Not quite yet.
5 MR. L. DYSART: If you want to wait,
6 we will wait.
7 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. What I
8 understood, his response this morning was that at
9 the time the CRD started, there was approximately
10 87 licenses that had been issued and that rose to
11 about 150 last year.
12 Can you confirm for us that, in fact,
13 that the number of licenses have consistently been
14 in range of 100 to 150 a year from the mid-1970s
15 to date?
16 MR. L. DYSART: Again, that was my
17 father's testimony. If you are drawing something
18 out of that, you would probably be better off
19 asking him.
20 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: All I wanted to
21 know is whether if you are familiar with the
22 number of licenses that have been issued
23 historically or not?
24 MR. L. DYSART: I can't answer that
25 specifically. I am familiar with different areas
6298
1 of fishing, but those specific questions I can't
2 confirm.
3 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. Did I
4 understand you correctly that this morning when
5 you were looking at the questionnaire, the survey
6 that was being done, one of the things that took
7 place was that there was a literature review? Is
8 that one of the things that was undertaken?
9 MS. HARDESS: That was just in
10 relation to cumulative effects in general.
11 Certainly, we read the relevant components of the
12 EIS and interrogatory and supplementary
13 information.
14 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: What about any
15 of the literature related to studies on South
16 Indian Lake?
17 MS. HARDESS: Not outside of the EIS.
18 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. Are you
19 familiar with a practicum that was done by Dennis
20 Peristy for the Natural Resources Institute in the
21 late 1980s; is that one of documents you had to
22 look at?
23 MS. HARDESS: No, and frankly to
24 develop the questionnaire, I wasn't looking for
25 information on what other people were telling us
6299
1 the effects were. I was trying to generate a
2 questionnaire that would just provide people's
3 opinions.
4 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: So, there was
5 no assessment that was done then about whether
6 Southern Indian Lake was starting to return to
7 pre-CRD levels, whether there was any recovery
8 that took place or when that took place?
9 MS. HARDESS: We didn't ask questions
10 specific to recovery. We asked questions that
11 were specific to the current environment.
12 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Maybe I will
13 just ask that question then to William Dysart.
14 As I understood your evidence this
15 morning, you indicated in response to a question
16 from Mr. Mayer that there were about 87 licenses
17 at the time the CRD started in the mid-1970s; is
18 that right?
19 MR. W. DYSART: Yes.
20 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: And then he
21 asked you a question about the number of licenses
22 that are currently issued.
23 The question I have about that is can
24 you confirm for us that the number of licenses for
25 commercial fishing that have been issued from the
6300
1 mid-1970s to date averages between 100 to 150 a
2 year or has averaged between 100 and 150 a year?
3 MR. W. DYSART: Is the question asking
4 "why" is this?
5 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Not why, I am
6 just asking you to confirm that, in fact, that is
7 the number.
8 MR. W. DYSART: It varies --
9 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: It varies in
10 the neighbour --
11 MR. W. DYSART: -- from 130 to 180.
12 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: 130 to 180,
13 okay.
14 MR. W. DYSART: It doesn't mean there
15 is a stop to it. There is no -- the reason why
16 that is is that as people get of age to do
17 commercial fishing, we are not going to block them
18 away from it. They have the right. They are
19 exercising their right to apply for a license and
20 we comply with it. The lake has a code that
21 hardly has ever been met for the last number of
22 years. We know they will not make money from
23 fishing and they know that themselves, but they do
24 have a right to have a fishing license if time
25 permits to conduct their traditional thing.
6301
1 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: There are
2 actually studies that were started last year on
3 the fishery, is that correct, environmental
4 studies?
5 MR. W. DYSART: Yes. There is on a
6 small scale, I will call it, and this is what we
7 are all sitting around here today to try and
8 emphasize to be taken into a bigger scale, because
9 the studies that are conducted today, they really
10 cannot get accurate because the thing they are
11 looking for is already washed down the drain.
12 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: In terms of
13 those studies, you are participating in what the
14 scope of those studies will be; is that correct?
15 MR. L. DYSART: Could you repeat the
16 question for us, please.
17 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I asked William
18 Dysart if he is participating in determining the
19 scope of those studies?
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Will you describe the
21 scope, Mrs. Lemieux.
22 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Are you
23 participating in what studies will be done?
24 MR. W. DYSART: I guess. I want to
25 let Leslie put it into words the way he
6302
1 understands it because in some cases, the way I
2 understand things and the way I write things out
3 doesn't actually meet. That's why the process is
4 so difficult.
5 MR. L. DYSART: If I understand your
6 question regarding discussions about the scope,
7 yes, he has had discussions. But, again, when it
8 comes to dealing with Manitoba Hydro, quite often
9 they come to the table with a very limited scope
10 or parameters of studies. Yes, there is
11 discussion, but sometimes the discussions
12 regarding scope are predetermined before those
13 discussions take place.
14 MS. AVERY KINEW: Who studies are you
15 talking about, Mrs. Lemieux?
16 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I was just
17 going to go to that. Maybe you can just answer
18 the question there. There are studies that are
19 being considered by CASIL, by the Trappers
20 Association, by the Fishers Association, Manitoba
21 Hydro and the Community Council, is that correct,
22 on Southern Indian Lake?
23 MR. L. DYSART: There has been
24 discussion. I think you have been referring to
25 has been called the "Environmental Steering
6303
1 Committee" for South Indian Lake. Manitoba Hydro
2 approached the South Indian Lake Fishermen's
3 Association last July 15th, if I recall the date,
4 and there was a presentation made about
5 establishing an Environmental Steering Committee
6 with a focus on fishing.
7 Now, as far as studies, yes, three
8 small studies were conducted last fall. One is
9 done normally by the Manitoba Conservation. It is
10 called, if I recall it correctly, "Index Netting".
11 This is where -- they said, at least what they
12 have told us, that it will be an annual study that
13 they do almost on all the lakes that are
14 commercially fished. It is a limited study where
15 it is done in about five to seven days and they
16 set various different mesh sizes of nets. It is
17 my understanding this is normal operations of
18 Manitoba Conservation not specific to South
19 Indian.
20 The other study was, I guess in
21 layman's terms, was called a "Whitefish Spawning"
22 study. North-South conducted that, paid by
23 Manitoba Hydro. Again, it was only a limited
24 study due to time and they couldn't do everything
25 that we had requested.
6304
1 The other one would have been a
2 survey, I am not sure if you can call it a study,
3 done on dock-side monitoring, trying to gather
4 information regarding to catch per unit per night
5 effort. Quite simply put that is how much effort
6 a fisherman or fisher person has to put in to get
7 a quantity of fish. Like, whether it is 14 nets
8 to catch 20 fish or vice versa. So, yes, there
9 has been discussion.
10 The only other comment that I would
11 have is this, again, was done with discussions
12 with South Indian Lake Fishermen's Association
13 specifically. They invited -- at least CASIL and
14 other representative groups to participate. But,
15 it is not studies done for remediation or
16 mitigation in regards to the CRD -- or at least in
17 CASIL's opinion.
18 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Just to help
19 the commissioners, this is an environmental
20 monitoring program that is being conducted between
21 Manitoba Hydro and community groups in Southern
22 Indian Lake. It has gone beyond just the
23 discussion stage, there are actual studies carried
24 out; isn't that correct?
25 MR. L. DYSART: Yeah, that's not
6305
1 correct, though, on who the participants are.
2 There is representatives -- like with the
3 Fishermen's specifically and one representative
4 from Manitoba Hydro and you also have
5 representation from Manitoba Conservation and we
6 have representation from the Department of
7 Fisheries and Oceans Canada. So, it is not just a
8 South Indian Lake Fishermen's and Hydro study.
9 Again, all the parties recognize that
10 the studies that are conducted last fall were
11 very, very preliminary and a series of studies
12 need to be undertaken long-term prior to any
13 conclusions drawn from the initial studies.
14 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: So, just to go
15 over that again then. So, there is a Steering
16 Committee, and I may stand corrected that, in
17 fact, the Steering Committee has representatives
18 from the Fishermen's Association, the Incorporated
19 Community of South Indian Lake, CASIL, the
20 Headman, the Trappers Association, Manitoba
21 Conservation, DFO and Manitoba Hydro; is that
22 right?
23 MR. L. DYSART: No, it is not totally
24 accurate to make a statement like that. Again,
25 this discussion started July 15th of 2003, if I am
6306
1 correct on that date, and it is evolving. Now, as
2 to what at the end of the day we can call it, that
3 day hasn't come yet. There is still discussions
4 involving this to -- even though within the
5 community whether or not there will be full
6 participants because there is some concern about
7 the parameters and the scope of the studies, and
8 what they would imply, say for instance, in
9 respect to the CASIL agreement. Like, for the
10 record, there has been no discussion with Manitoba
11 Hydro and CASIL representatives in respect to
12 remediation or mitigation of the CRD -- sorry.
13 The Augmented Flow Program, like the one clause in
14 there about mitigation.
15 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I am not headed
16 into that. I just wanted to get confirmation that
17 this committee has, in fact, been established --
18 MR. L. DYSART: It is started. It is
19 evolving.
20 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. It is
21 evolving and there have been studies undertaken
22 and there has been discussion of those results; is
23 that correct?
24 MR. L. DYSART: Yes. Again, there are
25 preliminary studies almost narrow in scope. I
6307
1 just want to make it very clear, there isn't
2 massive studies with large areas of scoping
3 undertaken in South Indian; that's not the case.
4 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Are you aware
5 that the highlights from the opinion survey
6 conducted in South Indian Lake were distributed to
7 the community following the completion of that
8 opinion survey? Are you aware of that?
9 MR. L. DYSART: Which opinion survey
10 are you referring to?
11 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: The one that
12 was conducted by -- the December 2001 opinion
13 survey.
14 MR. L. DYSART: I would have to see a
15 copy and I can't say if I am aware of something
16 being distributed or not unless... .
17 In answer to the question, it
18 hasn't -- I'm not aware it has been fully
19 distributed. I have seen a copy of that. It has
20 been a topic of discussion regarding the opinion
21 survey. One question earlier was surveys can
22 be -- questions can be drawn to get the answers
23 you want, yes. That was one of the topics of that
24 survey actually that I had with Michael Dumas, who
25 was a future development team member at that time.
6308
1 To answer your question whether I know
2 it has been distributed, I have seen it.
3 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: You're aware,
4 though, that it was distributed throughout the
5 community, you just can't confirm whether, in
6 fact, every single household received it?
7 MR. L. DYSART: Well, distributed --
8 in my idea of distribution is it would go to every
9 single house, but I can't confirm that. I don't
10 know.
11 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. Now, in
12 terms of the newsletters from the public
13 involvement plan and, in particular, the one from
14 round 3 of the public involvement plan that had
15 the initial findings of the environmental studies
16 about the Wuskwatim project, I am going to show
17 you those -- the newsletters from each of the
18 first three rounds to see if you can confirm for
19 us if those ones were distributed in South Indian
20 Lake and particularly the one from round 3?
21 MR. L. DYSART: Again, almost the same
22 answer. I am aware of the newsletters. I can't
23 say whether or not they have been fully
24 distributed. But, again, distribution is not
25 community consultation or participation.
6309
1 Actually, for the record, the
2 community consultants in South Indian Lake were
3 not hired. You mentioned round one in the
4 newsletter there. I do remember this
5 specifically. I think it was February of 2001,
6 the actual newsletter that you say might have been
7 distributed, that was part of their interview
8 process in translating that. So, it was produced
9 and I guess distributed, if you want to call it
10 that, prior even to there being community
11 consultants in South Indian Lake. Yeah, it was
12 made in February of 2001, I think.
13 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Just about
14 that, since you recall when the two community
15 consultants were hired, there was a request by the
16 community of South Indian Lake that there be
17 community consultants hired who were from the
18 community; do you recall that?
19 MR. L. DYSART: I, myself, was not
20 involved within the discussions or request. If
21 there was one, I don't know. I can't confirm
22 that.
23 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: You're aware
24 though that there were two positions that were
25 posted for community consultants to be hired from
6310
1 South Indian Lake; is that right?
2 MR. L. DYSART: Yes. Again, I think
3 subject to check, again, that was February of 2001
4 and I think at that time, the initial vote for the
5 AIP was supposed to take two weeks after that.
6 The AIP document was in its final form, ready for
7 referendum at that time, yeah.
8 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Those two
9 community consultants have continued to be
10 employed right up to today, except as you
11 indicated, Mike Dumas has taken another job; is
12 that right?
13 MR. L. DYSART: Yes, they have been
14 employed and I guess paid. But, I do recall one
15 time for a period of five months, they had no
16 office or any access to any office, other than by
17 the grace of the Community Council allowing them
18 some room. The trailer that was supposed to be
19 the future development office had no power for
20 five months and this was during the fall time.
21 So, yes, they were employed; to have a place to
22 work out of, no.
23 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: That was
24 corrected and there has been a future development
25 office in South Indian Lake since that time; is
6311
1 that correct?
2 MR. L. DYSART: Off and on because,
3 again, the trailer that was used, there was no
4 power in it for five months and then another time
5 it had to be moved. So, again, power had to be
6 disconnected and the time it took to move, it was
7 I think between two and three weeks to down the
8 street. So, yes, there was an office available.
9 Was it useable? No.
10 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: For the
11 majority of that period, since February of 2001,
12 you will agree with me that there have been
13 community consultants that have been hired and
14 employed from South Indian Lake and there has been
15 a future development office in South Indian Lake;
16 is that correct?
17 MR. MAYER: I think we have your
18 point, Mrs. Lemieux.
19 MS. HARDESS: I think Les will respond
20 to that.
21 MR. L. DYSART: Employing people
22 doesn't ensure meaningful participation or
23 consultation for NCN band members. I hope you
24 have that point.
25 MR. MAYER: You didn't respond to the
6312
1 question, but --
2 MR. L. DYSART: Yes, they were
3 employed. They were paid by Nelson House, if
4 that's an answer.
5 MS. HARDESS: I think our position is
6 that employing community consultants that do not
7 seem to reach the people in the community isn't
8 sufficient public involvement, and that it's
9 Manitoba Hydro's responsibility to ensure that the
10 people are consulted. If the community
11 consultants are not able to do that, then Manitoba
12 Hydro should not be satisfied with that response.
13 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Just to follow
14 up on that, I assume your response might be
15 different if, in fact, the people they were trying
16 to -- they were trying to reach or trying to
17 arrange meetings with continually asked for the
18 meetings to be cancelled?
19 MR. L. DYSART: Actually, Lisa, I will
20 respond to that.
21 Again, it is the responsibility of the
22 proponent, Manitoba Hydro and I guess NCN is, if
23 they want to call themselves co-proponents, it is
24 their responsibility. To infer that a specific
25 organization cancelled meetings I think is
6313
1 incorrect.
2 NCN knows there is elected bodies
3 within the community and so does Manitoba Hydro.
4 They sign agreements with them. They know there
5 is a Mayor and Council elected. There has been
6 some discussions. I think two weeks ago, in
7 regards to the MMF, they received letters. These
8 groups never even had the courtesy of a letter.
9 MS. HARDESS: Just as a point, I have
10 been involved in public consultation where people
11 don't want to meet before. I don't think that is
12 acceptable to just say, okay, well, fine, you
13 don't want to meet, that's the end of the day. I
14 think you find out how can we create a situation
15 where we can actually sit down and meet.
16 MR. L. DYSART: Lisa, just to add to
17 that, I am aware of the situation. Discussions
18 between myself, for an example, and Mike Dumas, my
19 friend and at that time, community consultant for
20 NCN, should not be stretched to consultation with
21 elected leadership groups within the community.
22 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Les, are you
23 aware of a letter that Mr. Dumas sent to Brian
24 Wood, the deputy mayor of South Indian Lake on
25 August 11, 2003 confirming that:
6314
1 "We have cancelled this meeting
2 numerous times on the request of the
3 South Indian Lake leadership and today
4 a tentative date is again being
5 suggested in this case for September
6 2003."
7 Are you familiar with that letter?
8 MR. L. DYSART: Yeah, I recall a
9 letter. As to what it exactly says, I can't
10 recall, but I am sure Mike did provide me with a
11 copy of that.
12 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I will show it
13 to you and I would like to have it marked as an
14 exhibit.
15 MR. L. DYSART: Again, just to clarify
16 some of my earlier answers, yes, there has been
17 discussions regarding meetings -- well, I mean
18 obviously the need for meetings was a concern
19 brought forward to one community consultants and
20 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation Chief and Council. We
21 did have one meeting in Thompson and there was
22 another one planned, but that failed to happen.
23 Things happen within our community and we can't
24 have as many meetings as we would like.
25 Again, like, for the record, one
6315
1 instance, a meeting was postponed by the Chief and
2 Council because of a gathering in Saskatchewan, I
3 think. So, yeah, there has been meetings talked
4 about or planned, but for some reason or another
5 they never took place.
6 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: That letter you
7 have in front of you, that's the letter that you
8 recall?
9 MR. L. DYSART: It looks to be the
10 same, if that's the one I would have received.
11 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Thank you. At
12 the appropriate time, perhaps we could just get
13 that marked as an exhibit.
14 Just in terms of this particular
15 letter where it talks about the South Indian Lake
16 leadership, that would be the leadership that you
17 have explained to us previously, and would include
18 the representative from the Trappers Association,
19 the Fisher's Association, CASIL, the Mayor and
20 Council and the Headman?
21 MR. L. DYSART: I can't say for sure.
22 I mean, you would, again, have to ask Mike Dumas
23 who he was referring to as far as what he meant by
24 leadership. I can't make a statement based on his
25 conclusion.
6316
1 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Who do you
2 think -- are those the five groups that you would
3 consider to be -- you being Les Dysart -- would
4 consider to be the SIL leadership?
5 MR. L. DYSART: I would have to ask
6 the Chairman his ruling on the relevancy to --
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Answer the question,
8 please.
9 MR. L. DYSART: My own personal
10 opinion?
11 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Is that the SIL
12 leadership for those five groups?
13 MR. L. DYSART: There is an elected
14 Mayor and Council elected by the people of South
15 Indian Lake under the rules of the Northern
16 Affairs Act. There is an elected Headman, which
17 the community chooses at this time to use the
18 current election code from NCN. There is an
19 elected CASIL board, which is, again, elected by
20 the people of South Indian Lake. The Fishermen
21 have an elected board using their traditional
22 practises and election and also for the Fishermen,
23 are they leaders? Yes, they are leaders.
24 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: So, the
25 representatives of those five groups would
6317
1 constitute the SIL leadership from your
2 perspective?
3 MR. L. DYSART: The term "South Indian
4 Leadership" might be taken to mean a group, a
5 formal legal entity. Again, those are elected
6 leaders within our community.
7 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I have no other
8 questions, but I believe that my colleague
9 Mr. Adkins will ask some now.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adkins, do you
11 expect your questions to be lengthy?
12 MR. ADKINS: I will be about half an
13 hour.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: We shall take a break
15 at this time.
16 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, just before
17 we do, because we are getting away on exhibits
18 here, I think we need to link them somewhat to the
19 transcript.
20 Perhaps the first would be the
21 correspondence which was just referred to and
22 that's the correspondence from Michael W. Dumas to
23 Brian Wood, the incorporated town of South Indian
24 Lake, and it's dated August 11, 2003 Manitoba
25 Hydro/NCN 1036.
6318
1
2 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN-1039: Letter from Michael
3 W. Dumas to Brian Wood, August 11, 2003)
4
5 MR. GREWAR: Shifting over to a CASIL
6 document, I think we should enter the "Review of
7 the Wuskwatim Generation Station EIS and the
8 Concerns of South Indian Lake", a report prepared
9 for the Community Association of South Indian Lake
10 by Duncan Associates Ltd., May 2004, as CASIL
11 1010.
12
13 (EXHIBIT CASIL-1010: Report prepared
14 for CASIL by Duncan Associates Ltd.,
15 dated May, 2004)
16
17 MR. GREWAR: One other item was the
18 agreement which was made between the community of
19 South Indian Lake, Manitoba Hydro Electric Board
20 and the Province of Manitoba was referred to
21 during the cross-examination by Mr. Abra, and I am
22 just wondering whether this should be tendered as
23 a Hydro exhibit or a CASIL exhibit?
24 MR. ABRA: It was tendered through
25 CASIL, it should be marked as a CASIL exhibit.
6319
1 MR. GREWAR: All right. Then that
2 will be CASIL-1011, that agreement, 1011.
3
4 (EXHIBIT CASIL-1011: Agreement made
5 between the community of South Indian
6 Lake, Manitoba Hydro Electric Board
7 and the Province of Manitoba)
8
9 MR. ABRA: Going back to 1010, I
10 wonder if we might also have submitted to us in
11 due course a description of Duncan and Associates?
12 We don't know who they are or who makes them up.
13 If we could have a description of Duncan and
14 Associates or CVs of the members of firm or
15 something of that nature. There is no description
16 of them in the report.
17 MS. PHARE: If I can clarify, I will
18 do that.
19
20 (UNDERTAKING #89: Provide description and/or CVs
21 of Duncan Associates Ltd. members)
22
23 MS. PHARE: If I could clarify one
24 other thing. The CASIL agreements in its entirety
25 was provided to the commission in our original
6320
1 filings.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
3 MR. ABRA: If it has been, then it
4 doesn't have to be tendered again, you're right.
5 MS. PHARE: Yes, it has. Thank you.
6 MR. GREWAR: That being the case
7 then, Mr. Chairman, I would have to verify with
8 the pre-file exhibits to make sure --
9 MR. ABRA: Doesn't matter. No reason
10 it can't be filed again. No harm in having two.
11 MR. GREWAR: Okay, thanks.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn until
13 3:30.
14
15 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 3:13 P.M.
16 AND RECONVENED AT 3:25 P.M.)
17
18 MR. ADKINS: If I could begin, Leslie,
19 by referring questions to you. In the second
20 presentation materials that were presented today
21 by you on behalf of CASIL, there were a series of
22 graphs that actually the counsel for the
23 Commission referred to you, and they are on pages
24 9 and 10 in the information there. Now, did you
25 have any professional help in preparing that? Who
6321
1 actually prepared those graphs?
2 MR. L. DYSART: Duncan & Associates.
3 MR. ADKINS: Okay. And Duncan &
4 Associates, they were actually consultants that
5 you retained, you chose those consultants?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes. Not myself
7 specifically, but the various community groups had
8 some discussions. I think there was at least
9 three different organizations we looked at, so
10 there was some form of process there before a
11 decision was made.
12 MR. ADKINS: Have you ever heard of
13 the term static inundation level or static water
14 level?
15 MR. L. DYSART: I have heard of the
16 term. Could I define and explain it? Probably
17 not. I'm a lay person. I'm not an expert in
18 engineering hydraulics.
19 MR. ADKINS: You have heard of the
20 term?
21 MR. L. DYSART: I heard the term, yes.
22 MR. ADKINS: Are you aware it was used
23 in the Northern Flood Agreement?
24 MR. L. DYSART: I would have to check
25 the Northern Flood Agreement, if it was used, like
6322
1 I say, I have no reason to disagree it is not
2 there.
3 MR. ADKINS: Did you have any
4 discussion with the Duncans about wind effects and
5 particularly wind setup?
6 MR. L. DYSART: Specific to wind
7 effects alone, no. In reference to the Canada
8 Water Survey benchmark, it is our understanding
9 that wind effects are eliminated on that
10 benchmark.
11 MR. ADKINS: Do you know the
12 difference between a benchmark and a water level
13 gauge?
14 MR. L. DYSART: Myself, no, I don't.
15 MR. ADKINS: Do you understand that a
16 lake like South Indian Lake is basically not one
17 level, it actually has several levels at any
18 particular point in time?
19 MR. L. DYSART: I can understand the
20 concept.
21 MR. ADKINS: Did you discuss that with
22 Duncan & Associates?
23 MR. L. DYSART: Maybe general, but a
24 specific discussion focused on that, no.
25 MR. ADKINS: Did they ever explain to
6323
1 you that on a lake water actually continues to
2 flow, and the direction it is flowing when you get
3 to that far end, it will be lower than another
4 point from where it is flowing from?
5 MR. L. DYSART: I can understand that
6 concept.
7 MR. ADKINS: So within a lake like
8 South Indian Lake where it is actually flowing in
9 two directions, down through South Bay and out
10 Notigi and up through Missi, there is actually a
11 flow in two directions, it starts at various
12 locations and flows in those directions?
13 MR. L. DYSART: I would say in
14 relation to South Indian there is a constant flow,
15 yes and no, it is depending on how the control
16 structures at either end are operated, plus the
17 natural inflows from other sources like the
18 Churchill River and other smaller creeks and
19 streams and such.
20 MR. ADKINS: But the elevation would
21 vary on Southern Indian Lake at various locations
22 depending on the flow of the water and the
23 direction of that flow and the duration of that
24 flow; does that make sense to you?
25 MR. L. DYSART: Again, depending on
6324
1 operations I would assume, yes.
2 MR. ADKINS: The operations will
3 affect the flow and the flow will affect the
4 levels.
5 MR. L. DYSART: Yes.
6 MR. ADKINS: And your understanding is
7 that the license and the augmented flow license
8 allow the operations at -- and they set a level of
9 the lake, is that correct? They set a level for
10 Southern Indian Lake?
11 MR. L. DYSART: There is minimums and
12 maximums, yes.
13 MR. ADKINS: So, there are minimum and
14 maximum levels, but they are for Southern Indian
15 Lake, is that correct?
16 MR. L. DYSART: From the one benchmark
17 that is identified in our agreement, yes, there is
18 one level, depending on a day.
19 MR. ADKINS: Benchmark doesn't
20 actually measure level, does it, or do you know?
21 MS. PHARE: If I could answer that
22 question. It is clear that there is a difference
23 between a benchmark and a gauge. The CASIL
24 agreement refers to gauging station 06EC001, and
25 that is the water level gauge that Manitoba Hydro
6325
1 personnel said that they rely on in that area and
2 that replaces the benchmark that was referred to
3 in the CRD licence.
4 MR. ADKINS: Again, it is referring to
5 a benchmark which is actually establishing a point
6 above sea level, do you understand that?
7 MS. PHARE: Yes.
8 MR. ADKINS: Then you would have
9 gauges and they would all tie into that benchmark,
10 so they would measure levels at various points
11 around the lake, but they would tie into that
12 benchmark as being this is so many feet above sea
13 level and all of them would record based on that
14 being so many feet above sea level. Do you
15 understand that?
16 MR. L. DYSART: Yes.
17 MR. ADKINS: So that the lake may be
18 at different levels in different locations, but
19 they are all based on that benchmark being so many
20 feet above sea level, correct?
21 MR. L. DYSART: Yes.
22 MR. ADKINS: It doesn't matter whether
23 that benchmark is in that location or in Nelson
24 House or in the City of Winnipeg, it wouldn't
25 matter at all as long as those gauges are tied to
6326
1 that benchmark?
2 MR. L. DYSART: Does it matter? Well,
3 it would matter to us in South Indian, but
4 scientifically --
5 MR. ADKINS: If you were an engineer,
6 if you reviewed this with your engineers.
7 MR. L. DYSART: As I say, we didn't
8 get into the specific details of the functions.
9 Our understanding is that that is the level, that
10 benchmark -- now I'm confused whether to use
11 benchmark or gauge -- but there is only one site
12 that levels would be taken out of South Indian
13 Lake.
14 MR. ADKINS: I think that is an
15 incorrect understanding. A benchmark, that is a
16 brass cap on this particular instance, sometimes
17 it is a lag bolt on a tree and other things. The
18 surveyors have come, Geodec Survey of Canada has
19 come in and they establish a benchmark and say
20 this particular mark is so many feet above sea
21 level, and then they revise that again and again
22 at various times. But for a specific date and
23 time they identify that and they say this is so
24 many feet above sea level. And then they
25 establish gauges at various places and they tie it
6327
1 back to that benchmark. And then those gauges,
2 they measure whatever the water is and they report
3 it as being so many feet above sea level based on
4 that benchmark being the accurate statement of how
5 many feet that is above sea level. So you can get
6 various levels on South Indian Lake that will all
7 be tied back to that benchmark. Has that ever
8 been explained to you by the engineers you
9 retained?
10 MR. L. DYSART: No.
11 MR. ADKINS: Has there ever been a
12 discussion with you about wind setup, where in
13 effect if wind is blowing in a particular
14 direction for an extended period of time, that it
15 actually can cause a lake level or a body of
16 water, level of body of water to change so that
17 one end of a lake can come up and the other end go
18 down if the wind is blowing towards the end of the
19 lake where the water is coming up. Has that been
20 explained to you?
21 MR. L. DYSART: Nobody has explained
22 it, but I understand the concept.
23 MR. ADKINS: It is not foreign, just
24 from traditional knowledge using the lake, you
25 know those things happen.
6328
1 MS. PHARE: If I can respond to that.
2 It has been explained by Manitoba Hydro personnel
3 to us, the logic behind taking water level
4 measurements from four gauges around various
5 portions of the lake. That was made very clear to
6 us. I would point out that on -- that doesn't
7 change the fundamental issue that we care about,
8 which is that there are instances where, for
9 example, every single water level at all four
10 gauges is above, is actually above the limit. If
11 you look at July to August 2000, that is a time
12 period where the measurements at every single
13 water gauge were not what they should be. And if
14 you want to try and say that it is important, that
15 you think it is a better statistical approach to
16 average out all around the lake, we understand
17 that that is Manitoba Hydro's approach.
18 MR. ADKINS: I do appreciate you are
19 legal counsel. You are there as a witness, but
20 you do understand --
21 MS. PHARE: I'm not legal counsel.
22 MR. ADKINS: You are not? You are
23 legally trained. You do understand the role of a
24 witness?
25 MS. PHARE: Yes, I do.
6329
1 MR. ADKINS: And that is to answer
2 questions.
3 MS. PHARE: Yes.
4 MR. ADKINS: I asked a question and I
5 want to know what the answer to that question is.
6 MS. PHARE: I'm actually hired as an
7 advisor to CASIL. I have been instructed by Les
8 Dysart to answer questions of substance on this
9 file when appropriate.
10 MR. ADKINS: Okay. Let me ask you
11 then, do you have any engineering background?
12 MS. PHARE: No, I don't.
13 MR. ADKINS: Did you sit down and
14 speak to Duncan & Associates about trying to
15 establish what a level of a lake is?
16 MS. PHARE: Duncan & Associates
17 personnel spoke to me, as did Canada water survey
18 personnel, as did Manitoba Hydro personnel.
19 MR. ADKINS: And in terms of
20 establishing a level of a lake, did you
21 specifically raise that question with Duncan &
22 Associates?
23 MS. PHARE: Which question?
24 MR. ADKINS: How do you establish a
25 level of a lake?
6330
1 MS. PHARE: Not with Duncan &
2 Associates, no, I reserved that question for
3 Manitoba Hydro personnel.
4 MR. ADKINS: And you received advice
5 from Manitoba Hydro's professional staff as to how
6 you do that?
7 MS. PHARE: Yes.
8 MR. ADKINS: And you have not sought
9 independent advice from an engineer on how you
10 would do that?
11 MS. PHARE: No, I trusted your people.
12 MR. ADKINS: And Manitoba Hydro's
13 people said in order to properly judge the level
14 of a lake you need to take levels from various
15 locations and do an average; is that correct?
16 MS. PHARE: I understand that that is
17 what their opinion is, yes.
18 MR. ADKINS: And that is what they
19 said to you.
20 MS. PHARE: Yes.
21 MR. ADKINS: That was their
22 professional opinion and that is what they said to
23 you, and you have sought no other professional
24 opinion to the contrary?
25 MS. PHARE: No.
6331
1 MR. ADKINS: Do you understand as a
2 licencee under the Water Power Act and environment
3 licences under which Manitoba Hydro operates, how
4 it is supposed to report water levels?
5 MS. PHARE: All I know is what is in
6 the licences.
7 MR. ADKINS: Right. And do you
8 understand what is in those licences?
9 MS. PHARE: Well, CASIL has its
10 opinion.
11 MR. ADKINS: I understand that. Do
12 you have any professional basis for that opinion?
13 MS. PHARE: CASIL has reviewed the
14 matter with its legal counsel.
15 MR. ADKINS: And that is Mr. Duboff.
16 Should I ask Mr. Duboff his understanding of how
17 you would actually establish a water level on a
18 lake and the obligations of a licencee in terms of
19 reporting --
20 MS. PHARE: The licence doesn't
21 actually explain to Manitoba Hydro how it is
22 supposed to report. The augmented flow program
23 does actually talk about providing reports to the
24 directors of water branch and environmental
25 approvals. But the content of the report and the
6332
1 method by which to report has not been made clear,
2 and that is one of the concerns that CASIl has.
3 MR. ADKINS: Okay. I suggest to you
4 that it is clear to engineers who are involved in
5 hydraulics, if something says that this is to be a
6 lake level, they understand that levels of the
7 lake vary depending on a number of factors, and in
8 order to give a lake level you have to have more
9 than one measurement or do calculations to try to
10 determine what that level would be. Do you have
11 any basis to disagree with that suggestion?
12 MS. PHARE: The only basis that CASIL
13 has to disagree with that is looking at the actual
14 water levels that are located on the lake at any
15 given point. We have looked at the data, and in a
16 number of circumstances, including some specific
17 periods, all of the numbers are outside of the
18 licenced limits. We understand that Manitoba
19 Hydro may take those numbers and do things with
20 them, but CASIL is concerned that the actual
21 readings taken off the gauges show exceedences
22 (sic).
23 MR. ADKINS: So, your answer to my
24 question is, no, you don't have professional basis
25 on which to disagree with that?
6333
1 MS. PHARE: The answer is that we
2 reviewed the publicly available data, yes, that is
3 true.
4 MR. ADKINS: Ms. Phare, do you
5 understand the difference between a benchmark and
6 a measuring station or a water level measuring
7 gauge?
8 MS. PHARE: Yes.
9 MR. ADKINS: You do?
10 MS. PHARE: Yes, I do.
11 MR. ADKINS: Are you aware, you have
12 made some fairly strong statements about Manitoba
13 Hydro being in violation or being in breach.
14 Counsel for the Commission asked you some
15 questions about that. Are you aware of any
16 circumstances or situation where Manitoba Hydro
17 has been cited as being in breach of its licence,
18 its obligations to the Province of Manitoba?
19 MS. PHARE: No, we haven't, and that
20 is one of the concerns that we have, given the
21 water measurements that we have been looking at
22 seem to indicate. But the whole point I think
23 that Mr. Dysart is making is that the information
24 is not readily accessible and it is not accessible
25 in a form that the community is comfortable with.
6334
1 And they are virtually completely unaware as to
2 the nature of the arrangements between Manitoba
3 Hydro and the Province of Manitoba, and they would
4 like to be more involved in that, obviously,
5 because they have an agreement that is dependent
6 upon some of those items.
7 MR. ADKINS: I'm going to just -- in
8 terms of those agreements that you are referring
9 to, the 1992 agreement for example, the CASIL was
10 involved in that, and they in fact had engineers
11 retained at Manitoba Hydro's expense to give them
12 advice at the time that that was done. Are you
13 aware of that? Or should I now be asking Leslie
14 those questions.
15 MS. PHARE: I'm not involved with the
16 CASIL agreement or any of those matters.
17 MR. ADKINS: You were referring to the
18 lack of information that Manitoba Hydro --
19 MS. PHARE: What I said is CASIL is
20 concerned that it is not receiving information
21 because it feels that it has agreements that are
22 dependent upon some of that information. I'm not
23 qualified to answer questions about the CASIL
24 agreement or whether that is the case. You would
25 have to ask their legal counsel about that.
6335
1 MR. ADKINS: Mr. Duboff, are you legal
2 counsel for that purpose?
3 MR. DUBOFF: For the purpose of the
4 negotiations of the '92 agreement I was not.
5 MR. ADKINS: Are you as legal counsel
6 saying that there is any information that CASIL is
7 supposed to be receiving that it is not receiving
8 from Manitoba Hydro?
9 MR. DUBOFF: I'm not aware of any.
10 MR. ADKINS: I wonder, Ms. Phare, are
11 you aware of the protocols and programs that
12 Manitoba Hydro has in place to provide information
13 to people in South Indian Lake and people who are
14 resource harvesting on South Indian Lake and
15 downstream from Missi?
16 MS. PHARE: Do you mean in terms of --
17 what information are you referring to, protocols
18 regarding what type of information?
19 MR. ADKINS: Well, the information,
20 I'm just generally asking are you aware that
21 Manitoba Hydro has programs and protocols in place
22 whereby it provides information to the community
23 of South Indian Lake and to people who are
24 utilizing the resources of Southern Indian Lake
25 and downstream?
6336
1 MS. PHARE: I'm aware of -- I'm aware
2 only of the monthly reports. The broader scope of
3 information between Manitoba Hydro and any of the
4 people that you have listed is beyond what I was
5 retained to assist CASIL with. I haven't had a
6 long term involvement with the community either
7 so.
8 MR. ADKINS: Take the monthly reports
9 then, that is a piece of information that
10 certainly is provided monthly, I take it, to South
11 Indian Lake, you are aware of that?
12 MS. PHARE: Yes.
13 MR. ADKINS: Do you know to whom it is
14 provided in South Indian Lake?
15 MS. PHARE: I believe it is to -- no,
16 I don't know.
17 MR. L. DYSART: It is supplied to --
18 my understanding is the South Indian Lake
19 community council, the mayor, whoever it may be at
20 that time, and I'm fairly certain that copies go
21 to the Fishermen's Association and the Trappers
22 Association. It is not provided specifically to
23 the Community Association of South Indian Lake.
24 MR. ADKINS: But it is actually
25 provided to people who will be out using --
6337
1 resource harvesters, like the fishermen?
2 MR. L. DYSART: That is one group that
3 does receive the monthly reports, yes.
4 MR. ADKINS: What is contained in the
5 monthly reports, so it is on the record.
6 MR. L. DYSART: From memory, I don't
7 have a copy in front of me, but they have I think
8 it is three graphs, one I think we identified is
9 the smooth elevations for the lake, Southern
10 Indian Lake. And then there is elevations at the
11 Notigi forebay, if I'm correct on that, and the
12 Thompson sea plane base. And then there is -- I
13 have seen it some time, I think it is part of the
14 same monthly report, draw downs, and those are
15 broadcast over NCI. I think that is the only
16 place that they are officially broadcast.
17 MR. ADKINS: So you receive these
18 monthly reports and they do a forecast into the
19 future of what the anticipated levels at these
20 locations would be, and they also -- sorry, you
21 were going to say something?
22 MR. L. DYSART: You classify it as a
23 monthly report, it is notice I guess, the
24 announcement that is made on the radio is notice.
25 MR. ADKINS: The notice of draw downs,
6338
1 things of that nature?
2 MR. L. DYSART: Yes.
3 MR. ADKINS: And if there is a change
4 in those reports, in other words, if there has
5 been a forecast and there is some change, you get
6 a notice of that as well?
7 MR. L. DYSART: Yes, there is notice
8 if there is any unexpected draw downs. Obviously
9 it will be after the fact in the monthly reports.
10 The community itself, take for example, in 1997,
11 the flood of the century, the community
12 experienced high levels for extended periods of
13 time. And subject to check, maximum discharge at
14 Missi Falls with little or no notice. One of my
15 friends who actually is a resource user down below
16 Missi control structure, was utilizing that area
17 for resources, and he told me he had to move his
18 camp four times in one day because of just the
19 amount of water that was coming in that area at
20 one time. So there is monthly notice. Is it
21 effective? No. And for unexpected, there is no
22 notice to the community residents and resource
23 users other than the mail system.
24 MR. ADKINS: Now, you talked about
25 downstream of Missi. In fact, my understanding is
6339
1 that Manitoba Hydro's communication protocols
2 involve, before there are significant changes they
3 actually have a helicopter go downstream of Missi
4 to find resource harvesters and give them notice.
5 MR. L. DYSART: I'm not aware it is a
6 standard practice. It may have been used in one
7 instance. Again with the reports, they don't
8 address any adverse effects or impacts. They are
9 just so many cubic feet per second will be let go
10 from Missi. And what that means to a resource
11 user, they don't know, because it has never been
12 explained to them.
13 MR. ADKINS: What is the nature of the
14 report that CASIL would like to get in terms of
15 the water levels on Southern Indian Lake?
16 MR. L. DYSART: We would have to have
17 some more thorough discussion before I could give
18 a specific answer to that question.
19 MR. ADKINS: Have you ever asked for a
20 different report from Manitoba Hydro?
21 MR. L. DYSART: Myself specifically?
22 MR. ADKINS: Let's start with you
23 specifically, and then if you know of anyone else
24 who has done that on behalf of your association,
25 you could advise me.
6340
1 MR. L. DYSART: Yes. With myself
2 specifically I haven't asked a representative with
3 the Manitoba Hydro, but again our community I
4 guess is, even though there is mistrust of
5 Manitoba Hydro, they did trust them with the
6 reports about flows. But I mean, they are
7 deficient. I have seen the reports. Do they mean
8 anything to me as a resource user? Probably not,
9 because they don't have daily levels provided to
10 them.
11 For instance, let's say they had to
12 increase 5000 cubic feet per second release at
13 Missi Falls, I don't know what level the lake is
14 below Missi Falls, and then I know there is a
15 5,000 cubic feet per second release at any given
16 moment, and it is explained to me how that would
17 impact me and affect me, yes, that would be more
18 effective than a notice that is sent by mail on
19 monthly -- and these are after the fact. I mean
20 the reports on levels are after the fact.
21 MR. ADKINS: There have been meetings
22 from time to time with Manitoba Hydro to discuss
23 all sorts of issues in connection with its
24 operations; is that correct?
25 MR. L. DYSART: In regards to its
6341
1 operations, how it controls South Indian Lake?
2 MR. ADKINS: Yes.
3 MR. L. DYSART: I can't say that is a
4 fact. It has probably been referred to in
5 discussions. In depth discussions in regards to
6 operations, I can't say those have taken place,
7 no.
8 MR. ADKINS: So you are not aware of
9 that as a fact?
10 MR. L. DYSART: No.
11 MR. ADKINS: I'm going to refer you to
12 page 6 of your first submissions, first set of
13 overheads. Page 6, I think --
14 MR. L. DYSART: In regards to
15 cumulative effects?
16 MR. ADKINS: Yes. In fact there is
17 the portions on total suspended solids.
18 MR. L. DYSART: Okay.
19 MR. ADKINS: And with respect to that,
20 first of all, are you aware that the Manitoba
21 Hydro and NCN have submitted a sediment management
22 plan?
23 MR. L. DYSART: A what plan?
24 MR. ADKINS: A sediment management
25 plan.
6342
1 MR. L. DYSART: I have heard it
2 referred to throughout the hearings.
3 MR. ADKINS: Have you taken a look at
4 it?
5 MR. L. DYSART: Myself specifically
6 no, but -- no.
7 MR. ADKINS: Has anyone on your panel
8 taken a look at it?
9 MS. HARDESS: No.
10 MR. ADKINS: In fact, my understanding
11 is that you, CASIL, specifically asked for a copy
12 of that? Did you ask us for it?
13 MR. L. DYSART: No.
14 MR. ADKINS: You are aware that it has
15 been filed, and none of the people on the panel
16 have looked at it for you? Has any one looked at
17 it for you?
18 MR. L. DYSART: No.
19 MS. HARDESS: Does the sediment
20 management plan include controlling sediment
21 levels on South Indian Lake?
22 MR. ADKINS: It talks about sediment
23 on Wuskwatim.
24 MS. HARDESS: I'm asking if it
25 includes information on South Indian Lake, because
6343
1 we are speaking specifically about that.
2 MR. ADKINS: The issue that was being
3 raised was the issue of total suspended sediment
4 on Wuskwatim, and the effects of operation of the
5 CRD as it relates to that, and that was the
6 evidence that has been given, and I'm wanting to
7 find out in connection with that plan had it been
8 reviewed?
9 MS. HARDESS: It hasn't been reviewed
10 and I'm assuming, or we are assuming, that the
11 sediment management plan is going to create the
12 sediment levels that are presented in the EIS and
13 that were assessed for significance. Perhaps the
14 plan, the sediment management plan improves those
15 levels, I don't know. We were referring to the
16 levels that were stated in the EIS for sediment
17 and that were assessed for significance.
18 MR. ADKINS: There is a submission
19 related to total suspended solids, which I would
20 have assumed relates to sedimentation and I was
21 curious as to whether or not that plan has been
22 looked at and the answer is no?
23 MR. L. DYSART: Mr. Adkins, you
24 haven't been at the hearings all of the time --
25 MR. ADKINS: That's correct.
6344
1 MR. L. DYSART: I'm not trying to
2 infer anything. I'm confused a little bit. I
3 know I heard reference to the sediment management
4 plan. Could you be more specific when that
5 submission was made? Was it part of the
6 environmental, in the supplementary filings in the
7 EIS or submitted as evidence throughout the
8 hearings?
9 MR. ADKINS: It was filed on
10 February 27, 2004 is my understanding.
11 MR. L. DYSART: Okay.
12 MR. ADKINS: Can I ask, in this
13 material there is a suggestion that the actual,
14 there might be some variation, if my understanding
15 is correct, in terms of the operation of CRD to
16 accommodate construction of Wuskwatim. What I
17 would like to know is whether anybody from
18 Manitoba Hydro or Nisichawayasihk has suggested
19 that to you?
20 MR. L. DYSART: No.
21 MR. ADKINS: So, it has not come from
22 the proponents that this is a proposal that they
23 are making?
24 MR. L. DYSART: No, it is not a
25 proposal. It is a possibility that could take
6345
1 place. There is no assurances given that it won't
2 take place.
3 MR. ADKINS: That is a different
4 matter and I'm not going to get in debate with you
5 over those sorts of things. I'm going to ask
6 questions and try and get answers from you, if I
7 can.
8 William, my friend, I said before you
9 must be proud of your son. How are you, William?
10 MR. W. DYSART: Good.
11 MR. ADKINS: You were referring to a
12 1982 agreement with the commercial fishermen. I
13 must not be aware of that agreement. Is that a
14 different agreement than I'm aware of?
15 MR. W. DYSART: It is dated 1982?
16 MR. ADKINS: I think you said -- I'm
17 aware of the agreement that was negotiated and
18 actually signed I think finally in 1984, and it
19 went to the arbitrator in the Northern Flood
20 Agreement and all of those sorts of things, I'm
21 aware of that agreement.
22 MR. W. DYSART: That is the time we
23 had to start negotiations regarding fishing.
24 MR. ADKINS: You started negotiations
25 in '82 and then concluded the agreement in '84?
6346
1 MR. W. DYSART: Don't quote me on
2 this, but I did actually start it in 1977, but
3 1982 come around, that is the time we start
4 sitting at the full table, because we were jerked
5 around so many times we didn't have a chance to go
6 through with the special people that would take
7 that as a problem.
8 MR. ADKINS: And you were represented
9 by legal counsel during the course of those
10 negotiations, if my recollection is correct, or my
11 understanding is correct?
12 MR. W. DYSART: At that -- at '82,
13 yes, to the finalization of '84.
14 MR. ADKINS: And ultimately you signed
15 off on that agreement. In fact, you were a
16 commercial fisherman. Were you the president at
17 that time?
18 MR. W. DYSART: Yes, I was.
19 MR. ADKINS: And my understanding of
20 the arrangements that were entered into, it was
21 actually a capitalization of the future net income
22 stream of your fishing, commercial fishing
23 operations basically forever, and that is how they
24 arrived at the dollar figure on that settlement.
25 Is that consistent with your recollection?
6347
1 MR. W. DYSART: I'm going to answer
2 it this way. It was based on what we knew as
3 commercial fishing and what was understood, what
4 we were trying to put forward. So there was no
5 clarification of what we understood. How we could
6 pursue it further, there was no definition. So it
7 more or less was just thrown at us, here is what
8 it is worth and here is what you should accept.
9 At them days, you had no choice. Because in terms
10 of resources to put a point across, it was all
11 about money again. If you can afford to do it,
12 take it further, if not, accept it the way it is.
13 But between them days and nowadays, it is totally
14 different. So, if it is -- if that particular
15 settlement is going to be based on for what it was
16 worth at that time, it is not appropriate to even
17 mention it or talk about it.
18 MR. ADKINS: Were you present when
19 this -- the agreement was actually taken to the
20 Northern Flood Agreement arbitrator, it was a
21 consent agreement, but went to the arbitrator for
22 approval, do you recall that?
23 THE WITNESS: I'm not too familiar
24 with the Northern Flood Agreement, because in them
25 days we were excluded in a lot of areas regarding
6348
1 the Northern Flood Agreement. So somehow or
2 another we had to try and fit ourselves in very
3 little bits of any compensation talks.
4 MR. ADKINS: I have before me a
5 transcript of the hearings before the arbitrator
6 with respect to that matter and the comments of
7 your legal counsel. It was Mr. McIvor, is that
8 correct?
9 MR. W. DYSART: At that time in the
10 '80's, yes.
11 MR. ADKINS: And he was representing
12 the commercial Fishermen's Association in that
13 particular matter?
14 MR. W. DYSART: I would imagine, yes.
15 MR. ADKINS: And he basically advised
16 the arbitrator that the position in the settlement
17 is that the fishery has been totally destroyed, in
18 other words, the commercial fishery on South
19 Indian Lake was totally destroyed. That was the
20 position that you were taking, your lawyer was
21 taking before the arbitrator, do you recall that?
22 MR. W. DYSART: I recall it, yes.
23 Well, I have to add on to the meaning of it. You
24 see, it is all based on what we knew at that time.
25 Today reflects to it. It is destroyed, we accept
6349
1 that. That is the meaning of our fishery right
2 now.
3 MR. ADKINS: And your legal counsel
4 went on and basically said, because the arbitrator
5 was concerned about this, he said totally
6 destroyed, that was the question he asked of your
7 lawyer. And your lawyer responded totally
8 destroyed, correct. And then Mr. McIvor said that
9 the amount in there is 100 percent compensation,
10 and the arbitrator said for what term, and
11 Mr. McIvor said using the value of the fishery at
12 its return and basically he said going on
13 afterwards virtually forever. So he basically
14 said what you have done is taken the net income,
15 not your gross income from commercial fishing, but
16 the net income from commercial fishing, he looked
17 at what it had been over the past several years,
18 basically said if that were to continue forever,
19 how much capital would it take to replace that,
20 and they basically settled on that basis. Do you
21 recall that? I can show you a copy of this, if
22 you wish.
23 MR. W. DYSART: That wasn't fully
24 explained to you. Maybe that is the way it reads
25 right now, but in terms of an explanation and
6350
1 understanding, it was not there to both parties.
2 Just to throw a question back, do you think Hydro
3 would have accepted the fact if the question was
4 put at them, like that?
5 MR. ADKINS: Well, what I don't
6 understand, William, is -- I did understand that
7 you were looking at this as being a totally
8 destroyed fishery. You felt -- certainly it was
9 represented to Hydro and represented to the
10 arbitrator that the commercial fishermen felt this
11 was a totally destroyed fishery. And my
12 understanding is, and it may not be the exact
13 right amount, but a settlement was reached to
14 settle that in terms of cash compensation from a
15 commericial fishery.
16 MR. W. DYSART: Yes, I understand.
17 MR. ADKINS: Now, I do understand that
18 afterwards that fishery wasn't totally destroyed,
19 in fact it had some pretty productive years. In
20 the last few years, particularly in the last 10 to
21 15 years, there has been pretty good production
22 off South Indian Lake; am I correct in that?
23 MR. W. DYSART: Yes and no. Even the
24 package contained that it could have been
25 destroyed. But that is the indication that it
6351
1 shows up today, that is the meaning of it.
2 MR. ADKINS: I'm just looking --
3 MR. W. DYSART: But the value was not
4 fully evaluated to what it is worth, because it
5 doesn't only contain fishing, it contains people
6 use of all reserves habitat in that area.
7 MR. ADKINS: There is no question that
8 the commercial fishermen's agreement was only;
9 dealing with commercial fishing, it wasn't dealing
10 with trapping or other aspects of your life within
11 Southern Indian Lake. But you do agree that in
12 fact some of the quantums of fish that you have
13 had since the project have been very, very similar
14 or above what you would have had even prior to the
15 project in terms of production off of South Indian
16 Lake?
17 MR. W. DYSART: It seems so, but I
18 think it cost us more than what the value of it is
19 to get it.
20 MR. ADKINS: You referenced the fact
21 that this didn't cover everything. And you are
22 aware, I think in fact if my recollection is
23 correct, you were involved in direct negotiations,
24 and involved with us in the 1992 agreement, am I
25 correct on that, William, is my recollection
6352
1 right?
2 MR. W. DYSART: Yes, your recollection
3 is right, we were involved quite a bit. It was
4 actually the Fishermen's Association that
5 initiated that to be conducted that way.
6 MR. ADKINS: And that was a
7 negotiation that went on for a few years, if my
8 recollection is correct?
9 MR. W. DYSART: Yes.
10 MR. ADKINS: And the arbitrator was
11 involved, the Court of Appeal at one point in
12 time, lots of fun things like that, do you recall?
13 MR. W. DYSART: Yes.
14 MR. ADKINS: And we had some better
15 times when we went up to Big Sand Lodge and you
16 fed us very well.
17 MR. W. DYSART: The way I feel today
18 we should go over the motions again.
19 MR. ADKINS: We have had some good
20 discussions. When you started off on that, again
21 this is something that your son referenced, there
22 had been no money or you didn't have support, but
23 my recollection was that there was about $500,000
24 provided to CASIL at that point in time in terms
25 of getting reports done, do you recall that?
6353
1 MR. W. DYSART: On CASIL agreement?
2 MR. ADKINS: Yes, you retained a
3 series of different consultants.
4 MR. W. DYSART: I don't know where you
5 are getting that. But the time the negotiations
6 was put into paper form to be accepted, the
7 Fishermen's Association was out of the picture.
8 It was under the chief and council or mayor and
9 council at that time were the representative of
10 CASIL. So I was not involved in the finalization.
11 MR. ADKINS: Is Jack your brother?
12 MR. W. DYSART: No.
13 MR. ADKINS: Cousin?
14 MR. W. DYSART: My brother's son, my
15 nephew.
16 MR. ADKINS: So Jack was at that point
17 in time the mayor and he was also the head of
18 CASIL?
19 MR. W. DYSART: Yes.
20 MR. ADKINS: So he would be Leslie's
21 cousin?
22 MR. W. DYSART: Yes.
23 MR. ADKINS: And Jack, in fact, then
24 took over and took charge of the CASIL
25 negotiations?
6354
1 MR. W. DYSART: Yes.
2 MR. ADKINS: But do you or do you not
3 recall, and if you don't perhaps I can ask Leslie
4 who is now the head of CASIL, whether or not you
5 recall there being consultants that again CASIL
6 retained at their discretion with funding given to
7 it by Hydro to deal with those agreements?
8 MR. L. DYSART: Sorry, Leslie Dysart.
9 In reference to I guess monies made available, it
10 was my understanding I guess through oral history,
11 this took a number of years of talks before they
12 got to that stage. In reference, I don't know, if
13 500,000 is correct, though, I will take your word
14 for it. It is also my understanding, subject to
15 check of course, that, yes, a consultant company
16 was retained to I guess try and determine the
17 value of compensation, if I can use those words,
18 and I think it was in the area of $74 million I
19 think at that time. Did Hydro provide funding to
20 that? Yes. They were the cause of the problem,
21 they should pay towards the solution.
22 MR. ADKINS: So that there was funding
23 provided to retain, and my recollection is that
24 you retained a company called E.E. Hobbs &
25 Associates.
6355
1 MR. L. DYSART: Again, subject to
2 check. But I'm fairly certainly that was --
3 MR. ADKINS: You retained an
4 individual by the name of Martin Loney?
5 MR. L. DYSART: I can't give you a
6 specific name. This was before my time. I was a
7 member of CASIL, I guess you could put it that
8 way, but I wasn't directly involved in the
9 discussions, negotiations. But, yes, I think it
10 was E.E. Hobbs & Associates, the consultant group
11 and now specific names --
12 MR. ADKINS: And Symian Consultants,
13 Wayne Mysocki (ph), he was retained in terms of
14 the biology and those sorts of issues?
15 MR. W. DYSART: Yes, they were
16 involved in it.
17 MR. ADKINS: You had an engineering
18 firm, I can't remember the name off the top of my
19 head, that was involved. Do you recall the
20 engineering firm?
21 MR. W. DYSART: No.
22 MR. ADKINS: There was some engineers
23 involved in that.
24 MR. W. DYSART: No, I don't think so.
25 I can't recall any engineer firm in terms of
6356
1 negotiations.
2 MR. ADKINS: Okay. I will have to
3 check that, I apologize for that.
4 MR. W. DYSART: Unless the consultants
5 Hobbs used engineering firms to do such and such,
6 whatever.
7 MR. L. DYSART: And I don't have
8 any -- through discussions and some of the
9 literature that I looked, any mention or reference
10 to an engineering firm, but subject to check.
11 MR. ADKINS: There is some engineering
12 reference in the material anyway. And that
13 settlement, in fact, it went back to the
14 arbitrator as well, if my recollection is correct.
15 It was a settlement arrived at, but it went to the
16 arbitrator, do you recall that?
17 MR. W. DYSART: I don't think that
18 settlement went to the arbitrator at all. It was
19 between Manitoba Hydro and CASIL and council
20 corporation.
21 MR. ADKINS: There was Manitoba Hydro,
22 the Community Association of South Indian Lake and
23 South Indian Lake Housing Authority and the
24 Province of Manitoba were all parties to that
25 agreement, as well as the South Indian Lake
6357
1 community itself, the mayor and council, they
2 signed on for certain purposes. But it was taken
3 back to the arbitrator, materials and evidence
4 were filed before the arbitrator, but you don't
5 recall that?
6 MR. L. DYSART: No.
7 MR. ADKINS: Do you recall it going to
8 the Court of Queen's Bench in terms of the infant
9 settlement portion of that?
10 MR. W. DYSART: Like I said I was not
11 involved in the final stages of that settlement.
12 MR. ADKINS: Your recollection of the
13 settlement, when you were involved in the start of
14 it, that was claims 46 and 47, it was the thing
15 dealing with all of the domestic impacts and the
16 domestic food losses and the domestic fishing
17 issues, and the culture and those sorts of things,
18 do you recall that?
19 MR. W. DYSART: I recall helping
20 putting categories together what the settlement
21 should be. But at the end result, that is not
22 what it was, but they still called it CASIL
23 agreement.
24 MR. ADKINS: And you had community
25 meetings, and you also had community surveys that
6358
1 you undertook. These weren't ones that Hydro did,
2 these were ones you did yourselves?
3 MR. W. DYSART: The procedure was tied
4 into that, yes.
5 MR. ADKINS: And that is what
6 ultimately gave rise to this agreement, the 1992
7 agreement?
8 MR. W. DYSART: The part that came out
9 of the final result, but that wasn't -- they put
10 sardines in to one basket is what it means.
11 MR. ADKINS: Now, you referred to the
12 one agreement when you were questioned about how
13 many agreements there were, I think the member,
14 Mr. Nepinak, had asked the question about what
15 agreements there were, and you had referenced the
16 one agreement, I take it that is the 1984
17 agreement that you were referring to with the
18 Commercial Fishermen's Association?
19 MR. W. DYSART: Yes.
20 MR. ADKINS: And you are aware there
21 were other agreements entered into with the
22 Commercial Fishermen's as well, do you recall
23 that?
24 MR. W. DYSART: Yes. But it is not an
25 agreement. It was a deal between Manitoba Hydro
6359
1 and the Fishermen's Association. It was a band
2 aid.
3 MR. ADKINS: There was the agreement
4 of 1984. There was subsequently an agreement
5 entered into relating to the Sturgeon Narrows,
6 correct?
7 MR. W. DYSART: Leslie will take care
8 of that.
9 MR. L. DYSART: It might be important
10 just to clarify for the Commission and members of
11 the public. I guess in the sense, in the context
12 that we are using agreement in this context, I
13 think we can say it is an agreement signed by
14 specific groups within the community, Manitoba
15 Hydro and the Province of Manitoba. In that
16 context, yes, there is agreements. But other
17 agreements that you are referring to, like you
18 said those were deals made -- I understand the
19 context when I say that, it is -- there weren't I
20 guess agreements with the three parties. The
21 other agreements that you are referring to I think
22 were just specifically with Manitoba Hydro and
23 South Indian Lake fishermen, do you understand --
24 there is a difference.
25 MR. W. DYSART: I will comment on the
6360
1 Sturgeon Narrows thing. It wasn't on account of
2 behalf of the Fishermen's Association. It was on
3 behalf of Hydro, they didn't want our structure to
4 be in place by the control dam at Missi Falls. So
5 they had to find reasons for us to move it
6 elsewhere. It was not beneficial to any party.
7 It was just a formality they had to do, I guess.
8 In fact, it got worse before because we had to put
9 up with diesel operations before it was hydro
10 powered by Missi Falls.
11 MR. ADKINS: And then in 1999 there
12 was a further agreement that was entered into?
13 MR. W. DYSART: That is the one, I
14 wouldn't call it an agreement, it was take this
15 much money to keep your fishery going, for
16 instance. Maybe, it is not put into those words,
17 but that is what it was.
18 MR. ADKINS: Well, again I'm not going
19 to go through the entirety of the agreement.
20 These agreements, we filed some material on it,
21 and we can refer to them, but there is --
22 MR. W. DYSART: Yes, that is very
23 understandable.
24 MR. ADKINS: Significant compensation
25 was paid, or compensation was paid?
6361
1 MR. W. DYSART: To a certain extent,
2 yes.
3 MR. L. DYSART: Mr. Adkins, I would
4 like to add to that. Just in the context of the
5 language, significance I guess would need to be
6 defined between the -- or significant would need
7 to be defined and agreed upon between the two
8 parties that the agreements affect. I mean, as an
9 example, you could take a large number of
10 compensation, but when you look at it in relation
11 to the large revenue dollars that Manitoba Hydro
12 earns because of South Indian Lake, you probably
13 wouldn't say those are significant. All I'm
14 saying is we should have an agreement on
15 significant prior to it being used in regard to
16 compensation.
17 MR. ADKINS: I accept that that is a
18 subjective word. There were agreements or deals,
19 if you want to use that term, although I think it
20 is a pejorative term in this sense, but there was
21 agreements entered into, there was compensation
22 paid and understandings reached and people signed
23 those agreements, is that correct?
24 MR. L. DYSART: In general, yes.
25 MR. ADKINS: Just a couple of issues
6362
1 that were raised. Leslie, are you familiar with
2 the 1996 agreement that was entered between
3 Manitoba Hydro, Canada, the Province of Manitoba
4 and Nelson House, now Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation?
5 MR. L. DYSART: I'm aware of it, I'm
6 not totally familiar with the whole implementation
7 agreement, I couldn't quote from it.
8 MR. ADKINS: Are you aware as it
9 relates to South Indian Lake that there was
10 nothing in the 1996 agreement that purported to
11 settle or resolve any of what are referred to in
12 it as South Indian Lake claims?
13 MR. L. DYSART: I would probably have
14 to answer that real specific to the actual claims.
15 South Indian Lake still has two outstanding claims
16 with Canada; for example, claim 46 and 47 that
17 haven't been resolved yet.
18 In reference to South Indian Lake
19 there is, I can't reference the article, for lands
20 for the South Indian Lake reserve that were part
21 of the '96 agreement. And then I guess, well, I'm
22 not a lawyer, we would have to analyze it and see
23 what else would be transferrable as far as the '96
24 agreement to the people of South Indian Lake, but
25 South Indian Lake is referenced independently in
6363
1 there.
2 MR. ADKINS: My understanding is that
3 actually Nisichawayasihk basically approached the
4 other parties to that '96 agreement to exclude the
5 South Indian Lake claims, and that was at the
6 request of South Indian Lake itself. Are you
7 aware of that?
8 MR. L. DYSART: I can't say I'm aware
9 of it. I would have to talk to the people that
10 were involved to see what exactly transpired. I
11 don't know who approached who, or if there was an
12 approach about excluding South Indian Lake, I
13 don't know.
14 MR. ADKINS: Are you aware that
15 Nisichawayasihk has basically raised with Manitoba
16 Hydro, on behalf of South Indian Lake, the idea of
17 trying to deal with some of the issues in the
18 comprehensive in a different fashion with South
19 Indian Lake, are you aware of that, and that there
20 is a process started there?
21 MR. L. DYSART: There is no
22 comprehensive agreement with South Indian Lake.
23 Like in respect to Nisichawayasihk, Norway House,
24 Tataskweyak, they have comprehensive
25 implementation agreements. My understanding,
6364
1 South Indian Lake doesn't have a comprehensive
2 implementation agreement with respect to the NFA
3 and CRD impacts. I guess you would have to be
4 more specific in your question as to what you are
5 referring to.
6 MR. ADKINS: Thank you, I appreciate
7 it. Those are the questions that I have.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms. Avery
9 Kinew.
10 MR. L. DYSART: It is a 30 year
11 process. Ask me in 30 years if it has been a long
12 time.
13 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you,
14 Mr. Chairman.
15 I understand, Mr. Dysart, that CASIL
16 is participating in this process because you feel
17 you lack the appropriate involvement. I just
18 wondered -- I also understand that had Hydro had
19 special sessions with the environmental groups
20 over the couple of years while they were doing the
21 EIS, and I wondered if CASIL was involved in any
22 of those meetings?
23 MR. L. DYSART: No, none at all.
24 MS. AVERY KINEW: And you felt the
25 only time that you got resources to assess the EIS
6365
1 was through the CEC process?
2 MR. L. DYSART: It wasn't the only
3 process. Like, we had -- like the Duncan report
4 referred to, we approached Hydro directly, but it
5 wasn't specific to the CEC process. We saw it,
6 yes, there was a formal process taking place that
7 we thought we needed to participate in order for
8 our concerns to be brought forward, because
9 questions weren't forthcoming other than the
10 pre-determined material.
11 MS. AVERY KINEW: So two of the issues
12 that you brought up was that you didn't have any
13 input into the definition of cumulative effects or
14 significance?
15 MR. L. DYSART: Yes, we had no
16 participation in those definitions.
17 MS. AVERY KINEW: Have you been
18 involved in any consultations with DFO, or had
19 access to any of their information?
20 MR. L. DYSART: Specific to Wuskwatim?
21 MS. AVERY KINEW: To the project, yes?
22 MR. L. DYSART: No.
23 MS. AVERY KINEW: I thank you for your
24 thoughtful presentation.
25 MS. PHARE: Let me clarify that.
6366
1 CASIL has been approached by the Manitoba
2 Government and DFO regarding the "section 35
3 consultation" if that is what you are referring
4 to, but they have not received any additional
5 information as to Wuskwatim, the Wuskwatim
6 project, if that is what you -- if that is what
7 your question means.
8 MR. L. DYSART: I think you made the
9 point, CASIL itself hasn't been approached by DFO
10 and Manitoba Conservation with respect to the
11 section 35. The Headman Chris Baker and also the
12 Mayor and Council were the ones directly
13 approached. Myself, personally, I just
14 coordinated for them.
15 In respect to say the review of the
16 EIS itself, specifically, there has been no
17 contact either way with DFO specific to the
18 Environmental Impact Statement.
19 MS. AVERY KINEW: You have already
20 been involved in a section 35 consultation meeting
21 then?
22 MR. L. DYSART: We have had one
23 meeting, and I would have to check again, I know
24 we have meetings again planned, but these hearings
25 are kind of -- you can't be at two places at the
6367
1 same time.
2 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you. I know
3 it takes a lot of energy to participate for you
4 and your father and people from your community.
5 MR. L. DYSART: Thank you. And I can
6 appreciate the amount of time that the panel has
7 spent here in the last three months.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
9 MR. W. DYSART: I would like to thank
10 the Commission for listening to us, but I would
11 like to bring out the reason why I'm sitting here
12 today with him. Because the other Headman and
13 Mayor or Council is supposed to be in with us, but
14 there was a death at home, so they had to make a
15 choice where they want to be. Because you can't
16 cancel hearings on account of them kind of things
17 happening, things have to go on, so somebody has
18 to take the punches.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: We appreciate that and
20 we thank you.
21 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Again, thanks for your
23 presentation.
24 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, just as the
25 panel is leaving, I just wanted to enter a
6368
1 correction. I incorrectly assigned an exhibit
2 number to a document that was filed earlier today
3 by Hydro. It is the correspondence from Michael
4 Dumas to Brian Wood at South Indian Lake, I
5 indicated it as 1036, it is actually 1039. My
6 apologies. So that is MH/NCN 1039 -- 1036 was
7 already assigned. Thank you.
8 MR. L. DYSART: Mr. Chairman, are we
9 finished here?
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you.
11 The next portion of the afternoon, as
12 unfolding, requires the presence of EIS panel from
13 Hydro, so that Displaced Residents of South Indian
14 Lake can ask their questions. I ask the DRSIL
15 group to come forward.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen,
17 we are ready to carry on with the questions by the
18 Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake on the --
19 Mr. Bedford?
20 MR. BEDFORD: Mr. Chairman, just
21 before we proceed with further cross-examination
22 now that the panel is back up, I'm aware that
23 Mr. Adams would like to make a clarification of
24 some remarks that he made the last time we were
25 together and the MMF was questioning the panel.
6369
1 So with your permission, he will make those
2 remarks. I am assured that they are very brief,
3 and then we can carry on.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: With that
5 understanding, Mr. Adams, proceed.
6 MR. ADAMS: They shall be the soul of
7 brevity. As Mr. Bedford said, I want to clarify
8 very briefly some of the remarks that I made on
9 Friday, May 14th, in response to a question --
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second, Mr.
11 Adams. Could we have order, please, and quiet?
12 MR. ADAMS: -- in response to a
13 question asked by the MMF counsel. It is
14 clarification of Manitoba Hydro and NCN's position
15 on consultation with the Metis who were
16 potentially affected by the projects, and the
17 associated interactions with the MMF itself.
18 I had been asked if Manitoba Hydro/NCN
19 would be willing to meet with the MMF. In case
20 there was any uncertainty as to the meaning of my
21 answer, I wish to confirm that Hydro and NCN
22 continue to be ready and willing to meet with the
23 MMF. As has been outlined earlier, Hydro and NCN
24 have sent a number of invitations to MMF for
25 meetings regarding consultation on Wuskwatim. We
6370
1 are still prepared to meet with the MMF
2 representatives to review the project, the
3 activities of the proponents to date, and the
4 analysis arising from the investigations and
5 consultations. We would hope and expect to
6 receive from the MMF the perspectives of its
7 members with respect to the pathways of effects
8 and impacts of Wuskwatim on the activities and
9 culture of the Metis people. Such a process with
10 the MMF would necessarily be in addition to and
11 not displace the consultations already underway
12 directly with the local communities, the local
13 associations, and the individuals.
14 To ensure that this was clear to the
15 MMF, Councillor Thomas and Mr. Wojcznski sent
16 Mr. Chartrand another letter on May 19th.
17 Mr. Bedford has copies of this letter that he will
18 provide to the Clean Environment Commission
19 hearing. In addition, I understand that a meeting
20 on this topic is being organized between
21 Mr. Chartrand, our president, Mr. Brennan, and the
22 minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro, Mr. Sale.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
24 MR. GREWAR: I will distribute this
25 letter and we can perhaps assign exhibit MH/NCN
6371
1 1040. This is dated May 19th, 2004. It is from
2 Ed Wojczynski and Councillor William E. Thomas,
3 NCN and Manitoba Hydro respectively, to David
4 Chartrand, Manitoba Metis Federation. And I will
5 distribute copies.
6
7 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN 1040: Letter, May
8 19, 2004 from MH/NCN to David Chartrand
9 MMF, re: Metis consultation)
10
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Troniak, I gather
12 that you are the one that will launch your
13 questioning.
14 MR. TRONIAK: That's correct. Good
15 evening. For the record I am Dennis Troniak,
16 counsel for the Displaced Residents of South
17 Indian Lake. With me at the table are Carol
18 Kobliski, spokesperson for Justice Seekers of
19 Nelson House, and the Reverend Nelson Hart, a
20 Reverend with the United Church in Nelson House,
21 and an elder in the community. Also with us this
22 evening are two other elders seated behind me,
23 Joshua Flett and Frank Moore. Joshua Flett is the
24 traditional Chief of Nelson House, and Mr. Moore
25 is the traditional Headman of South Indian Lake.
6372
1 Just a question with respect to the
2 export of Wuskwatim power. In the presentation by
3 NCN and Manitoba Hydro, and during my
4 cross-examination on March 15th, and in response
5 to questions from the board, Manitoba Hydro made
6 it very clear that Wuskwatim power was built to
7 export power from 2010 to 2020, and NCN would reap
8 up-front benefits from higher export prices.
9 On May 12, 2004, in the Manitoba
10 Legislature during question period, Liberal Party
11 leader Jon Gerrard tabled sworn testimony from
12 Mr. Ken Adams before the Minnesota Senate Jobs,
13 Energy and Community Development Committee on
14 March 12, 2004. I have the transcript, verbatim
15 transcript of what went on in the legislature to
16 file.
17 Now I am quoting from the Hansard in
18 the Legislature a question to the Premier. And he
19 states, Mr. Adams said about Wuskwatim,
20 "By the time we get this generating
21 station in place, we will not be in a
22 position to sell as much energy
23 throughout our export customers as we
24 do today. Mr. Adams said explicitly
25 that Wuskwatim is not designed for
6373
1 export sales, it is designed solely to
2 address rising energy consumption in
3 Manitoba."
4 And I asked the Minister of Energy,
5 Science and Technology to confirm what the vice
6 president of Manitoba Hydro said with respect to
7 the Wuskwatim dam, is this dam being built solely
8 for the purpose of internal needs of Manitoba.
9 And Mr. Gerrard went on to say,
10 "I further table, I table further
11 transcripts and testimony,
12 Mr. Speaker, showing very clearly that
13 Mr. Adams will say one thing on
14 March 12th and he was saying something
15 completely the opposite on March 15th.
16 I would ask the Premier, given that we
17 are in the middle of the Wuskwatim dam
18 review right now, that this is a
19 critical process, very important to
20 the Province of Manitoba. How can
21 this process of integrity, when the
22 chief spokesperson for Manitoba Hydro
23 before the Clean Environment
24 Commission is saying so diametrically
25 opposing opinions so close together."
6374
1 And my clients are concerned, or would like that
2 question answered today for the record before the
3 Commission. Mr. Adams?
4 MR. ADKINS: Yes, I would like to
5 response to that. Firstly, I cannot take
6 responsibility for what any member of the
7 Legislature chooses to say in the House.
8 Secondly, the statements that I made
9 in front of this Commission and the statements I
10 made in front of the Senate Committee in the U.S.
11 were entirely consistent and compatible. If you
12 continue to read Hansard, you would have found
13 that the Honourable Minister Sale responded to
14 this particular question about a week ago, I can't
15 remember the exact date, confirming that the two
16 statements were entirely compatible. And more
17 specifically, I wrote to Senator Kubly in
18 Minnesota from whom this piece of information
19 originates, advising him that he was
20 misinterpreting both sets of statements and that
21 the statements are compatible.
22 For the record, by the time we get
23 Wuskwatim in service, we will have less energy to
24 sell in the export market than we have today. But
25 we are advancing Wuskwatim by approximately 10
6375
1 years specifically so we can sell that energy in
2 the export market. Those two statements are not
3 incompatible.
4 MR. TRONIAK: So, in other words, you
5 are saying that the dam is being built for purpose
6 of internal needs of Manitoba, not for export?
7 MR. ADAMS: I think we went through
8 this.
9 MR. TRONIAK: You are building the dam
10 for the internal needs of Manitoba, that is why it
11 is being built; is that right?
12 MR. ADAMS: Ultimately we will need
13 new generation in Manitoba in approximately 2020.
14 I think Mr. Wojcznski and his friends went on for
15 about three days in that respect.
16 We have an opportunity to advance the
17 project to approximately 2010, and we plan to do
18 that. In that intervening ten years, we will be
19 selling the electricity to whoever we can sell it
20 to.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Just a minute,
22 Mr. Troniak. You are sitting there to do EIS
23 questions, and the particular questions have been
24 asked, that you are asking. The response from
25 Mr. Adams that has been given has already been
6376
1 asked at least twice and answered twice during the
2 course of these hearings. The Commission is not
3 impressed by the number of times a question is
4 asked or answered. Once is sufficient. And I
5 urge you to proceed to the EIS questions.
6 MR. TRONIAK: We believe that is the
7 case, because this came up after the last, or
8 during the EIS, however --
9 THE CHAIRMAN: What has transpired in
10 the Legislature of Manitoba has no bearing on what
11 is going on here.
12 MR. TRONIAK: All I want, and I think
13 Mr. Adams may have answered that, my question is
14 specifically since there seems to be
15 inconsistencies, the Wuskwatim project was built
16 for internal --
17 THE CHAIRMAN: He just answered that
18 to you, so proceed with the next question.
19 MR. TRONIAK: I may have missed that,
20 but that is the case, Mr. Adams; correct?
21 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't allow a second
22 answer on the same question.
23 MR. TRONIAK: Thank you. Now,
24 Mr. Adams, during the Wuskwatim EIS presentation
25 by Manitoba Hydro, you stated as of March 31,
6377
1 2004, Hydro had spent some 522 million in dealing
2 with compensation, adverse effects from Hydro
3 development. I am just wondering, is this figure
4 for only damage from the Churchill River
5 Diversion, or does it include other Hydro
6 developments such as the Grand Rapids forebay?
7 MR. ADAMS: The figure includes -- it
8 is a global number, it includes all of the
9 relevant settlements that we have with respect to
10 Winnipeg River, Grand Rapids, Churchill River
11 Diversion, Lake Winnipeg Regulation and so on.
12 MR. TRONIAK: Does that include the
13 comprehensive agreements, what was paid to Nelson
14 House and South Indian Lake with respect to the
15 deals that were entered into?
16 MR. ADAMS: It is a global settlement.
17 MR. TRONIAK: And that covers the
18 total term of the developments, some 40 years; is
19 that correct?
20 MR. ADAMS: It is the sum of
21 everything that has been agreed to, to date.
22 MR. TRONIAK: Thank you. Now,
23 Mr. Wojcznski, in a request, or I guess you made
24 an undertaking to provide information with respect
25 to a comparison of the Quebec Peace of the Brave
6378
1 agreement and the Wuskwatim deal, just a couple of
2 questions on that. When you provided that
3 information, what information sources were used
4 for the collection of information on the
5 negotiation of the Quebec agreement?
6 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: For the Quebec side
7 of it, we primarily went to the agreements
8 themselves. We also had discussions with Hydro
9 Quebec, and there is information, extensive
10 information on the Hydro Quebec website as well.
11 MR. TRONIAK: Did you have any
12 discussions with the Hydro Quebec or the James Bay
13 Cree?
14 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: As I indicated, we
15 did have discussions with Hydro Quebec.
16 MR. TRONIAK: But not with the James
17 Bay Cree, I take it?
18 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: No.
19 MR. TRONIAK: Now, did NCN or Manitoba
20 Hydro present any of this information to NCN band
21 members?
22 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Hydro hasn't, but --
23 MR. TRONIAK: Has NCN presented any of
24 that information?
25 MR. THOMAS: The information that you
6379
1 are asking about is relatively fresh, and the
2 answer is no.
3 MR. TRONIAK: Now, will it be
4 presented to members at an open general band
5 meeting?
6 MR. THOMAS: When we do have a
7 general band meeting. We've already made
8 arrangements to have one with a specific focus on
9 Wuskwatim, and unfortunately it had to be
10 postponed due to a death in the community. And
11 when the time comes for us to talk about these
12 issues in a public forum, where it is a general
13 band meeting, it will be discussed.
14 MR. TRONIAK: So the specific Quebec
15 information with respect to the Peace of the Brave
16 agreement in Quebec will be made available and
17 presented to NCN band members.
18 MR. THOMAS: I am not quite sure. We
19 have had a chance to look at some of it and try to
20 do some comparisons as to what each one contains.
21 Certainly we are going to present the information
22 that we have available and the comparisons that we
23 have done on it.
24 MR. TRONIAK: And that would include
25 the information provided, or tabled by
6380
1 Mr. Wojcznski; correct?
2 MR. THOMAS: Which?
3 MR. TRONIAK: That he presented in
4 reply to an undertaking that he made to the
5 Commission -- that information is available to
6 you, isn't it?
7 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Can I set the record
8 straight? I actually didn't take the undertaking.
9 It was given by Mr. Bedford on behalf of Manitoba
10 Hydro, just for the record.
11 MR. TRONIAK: All right. But it was
12 in reply to an undertaking, so that information is
13 available to you, you will agree, Mr. Thomas?
14 MR. THOMAS: Yes.
15 MR. TRONIAK: And that will be
16 presented to the membership?
17 MR. THOMAS: I don't see any reason
18 why not.
19 MR. TRONIAK: Will it be?
20 MR. THOMAS: If it is there, yes.
21 MR. TRONIAK: You undertake to do that
22 then? Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Troniak, here we go
24 again, you are dealing with questions on the EIS,
25 now you are asking questions on what is going to
6381
1 occur within NCN.
2 MR. TRONIAK: Again, he said
3 "probably" or wasn't quite specific and I wanted
4 him to be specific.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: The question is not
6 relevant anyways.
7 MR. THOMAS: It is not relevant I
8 don't think, but at the same time, I am not going
9 to give you per se an undertaking. If my people
10 at the meeting request for information, I will
11 undertake to give them the information.
12 MR. TRONIAK: All right. Now,
13 Mr. Osler, in response to a question raised by
14 Ms. Phare during the CASIL cross-examination on
15 the EIS, in response to a question on whether you
16 and your team were asked to change any
17 conclusions, you stated,
18 "I do not recall the clients in the
19 sense that you are asking the question
20 telling us to change anything.
21 Mr. Ken Adams stated that he could not
22 recall an instance when final
23 conclusions were asked to be changed
24 by Hydro."
25 Now, I understand that a committee approach was
6382
1 used to decide what was actually to be included in
2 the EIS; is that correct?
3 MR. OSLER: The reports of the EIS
4 were reviewed by a joint committee of Manitoba
5 Hydro and NCN.
6 MR. TRONIAK: All right. So what I
7 say is correct then; is that fair to say?
8 MR. OSLER: What I said is correct.
9 They were reviewed and approved for submission to
10 the regulatory authorities by a joint committee of
11 Manitoba Hydro and NCN. And actually that
12 committee recommended to the respective
13 authorities in both Manitoba Hydro and NCN, I
14 think the Manitoba recommendation went up through
15 Mr. Wojcznski to their side, and went to Chief and
16 Council, if I am not mistaken with respect to
17 NCN's side.
18 MR. TRONIAK: Now, is there anything
19 that you feel in the work that you or your team
20 has done regarding the preparation of EIS that you
21 feel should have been included and submitted to
22 the hearings for review but wasn't?
23 MR. OSLER: No.
24 MR. TRONIAK: Now, Mr. Osler, I am
25 correct in assuming that there was no undue
6383
1 pressure or influence placed on you or individuals
2 working on the EIS to include or exclude any
3 information from the EIS submitted; is that fair
4 to say?
5 MR. OSLER: We went through this
6 before, and the answer then and the answer now is
7 no.
8 MR. TRONIAK: All right. Given that
9 we are at the end of the cross-examination of the
10 EIS, and I know hindsight is always 20/20, are
11 there any aspects of the EIS or the process
12 followed to date to develop, in your professional
13 opinion, that should have been done differently to
14 improve upon -- because I think one of the reasons
15 we are here today is to improve the system -- is
16 there anything that could have been done
17 differently, with hindsight?
18 MR. OSLER: Probably.
19 MR. TRONIAK: And what would that be?
20 MR. OSLER: I have not had much time
21 to dwell on it, but not in the sense of core
22 issues, I would hope that we could find ways to
23 facilitate being able to do the whole process a
24 lot quicker in the future. My thoughts more dwell
25 on that area than they do on anything to do with
6384
1 the technical material. But it is not -- if you
2 have some specific areas that you want to pursue
3 with my colleagues and myself, I think that would
4 be the best way to proceed.
5 MR. TRONIAK: Those are my questions.
6 I will just pass it on to Ms. Kobliski who has a
7 number of questions.
8 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, just for
9 some continuity, I wonder if we might enter the
10 excerpt from Hansard that Mr. Troniak mentioned as
11 DRSIL 1006, Legislative Assembly of Manitoba,
12 Wednesday, May 12, 2004.
13 (EXHIBIT DRSIL 1006: Excerpt from
14 Hansard, Wednesday, May 12, 2004)
15
16 MR. ADAMS: If this is going to be
17 filed as an exhibit, then we will undertake to
18 file the Minister's rebuttal in the House,
19 together with the letter that I wrote to Senator
20 Kubly.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: We will look forward to
22 that.
23 MR. TRONIAK: I do have a DVD of
24 Mr. Adams' testimony in Minnesota that I would
25 like to table as well.
6385
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
2 MR. TRONIAK: I only have the one
3 copy.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you,
5 Ms. Kobliski.
6 MR. GREWAR: Just one moment,
7 Mr. Chairman, I think before we can enter this as
8 an exhibit, I would have to have it printed so we
9 can actually see the content and have some title
10 to it, so perhaps we will assign it a letter at a
11 later time.
12 MR. MAYER: I would like to know where
13 it came from. Where did it come from? Did you
14 make it?
15 MR. TRONIAK: No, I did not. It is a
16 copy provided to me from Minnesota of the
17 hearings.
18 MR. MAYER: From whom did you get it,
19 sir?
20 MR. TRONIAK: It was provided to me
21 and it is -- the title on it is from Chris
22 Tveitbakk, the Audio Guy in Minneapolis,
23 Minnesota, and it is titled Ken Adams.
24 MR. GREWAR: Perhaps, is it a
25 printable document or is it an audio document?
6386
1 MR. TRONIAK: It is audio document.
2 MR. GREWAR: It is the Commission's
3 desire to accept it as it is, as an audio
4 document?
5 THE CHAIRMAN: We will determine that
6 when we have a chance to listen to it, or a chance
7 to print it. But we will not agree at this point
8 to file it.
9 MS. KOBLISKI: Good afternoon. My
10 name is Carol Kobliski and I am from Nelson House.
11 I am a spokesperson on behalf of Justice Seekers.
12 I have a few questions that I would like to ask
13 from the EIS, concerning the EIS on the
14 traditional elders knowledge that has been brought
15 up by Elvis Thomas and the panel and Valerie
16 Matthews Lemieux.
17 This question that I have is actually
18 for Valerie, if she would answer it for me.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: She is not on the
20 panel, but you may ask the question of Mr. Thomas.
21 MS. KOBLISKI: I will direct it to
22 Mr. Thomas. On April 8, 2004, Valerie Matthews
23 Lemieux stated that NCN developed it's own
24 definition of traditional knowledge to be
25 incorporated into the EIS, which according to her
6387
1 is, traditional knowledge is the observation and
2 experience of land, Aboriginal law regarding how
3 the environment works, the understanding of NCN's
4 place in the world, how things are connected,
5 including spirituality and the relationship to the
6 land, the goals and aspirations of NCN, the
7 outlook on the proposed project concerning
8 acceptability, NCN's identity and culture, the
9 stewardship of the land, and the base for natural
10 resource management. I would like to ask whose
11 definitions are these?
12 MR. THOMAS: Valerie, do you want to
13 answer that -- just kidding. It comes from the
14 community, community members.
15 MS. KOBLISKI: Okay. Elvis Thomas, do
16 you agree that NCN band members are not just Chief
17 and Council, and Manitoba Hydro should select the
18 traditional elders to represent the tradition,
19 custom, culture and spiritual values of Nelson
20 House First Nation?
21 MR. THOMAS: Would you repeat that?
22 MS. KOBLISKI: Do you agree that NCN
23 band members, and not just Chief and Council and
24 Manitoba Hydro should select the traditional
25 elders to represent the traditions, customs,
6388
1 culture and spiritual values of Nelson House First
2 Nation?
3 MR. THOMAS: That NCN band members
4 should select, and not just Chief and Council?
5 MS. KOBLISKI: Yes.
6 MR. THOMAS: It depends on the
7 purpose, I suppose. In our process it has not
8 just been Chief and Council to make a decision as
9 to who is seen as an elder, it has been a
10 combination of Chief and Council and NCN people
11 that have made that decision.
12 MS. KOBLISKI: Who are the Nelson
13 House elders that were used to develop this
14 definition and provide traditional knowledge for
15 the Wuskwatim EIS?
16 MR. THOMAS: I don't have a ready
17 recollection of exactly who has been involved, but
18 we have had many of our own people attend meetings
19 with us, and generally our people know who our
20 elders are. Some of them choose to participate
21 and others choose to not participate for a lot of
22 different reasons. Maybe they have -- they need
23 to go out trapping. As one of the elders that I
24 talked to previously, I invited him to some of the
25 meetings, and sometimes he has to go out trapping
6389
1 and fishing and therefore cannot attend. Other
2 elders then come forward. Generally we try and go
3 for people who are identified by our community as
4 people who are seen as respectable in our
5 community and are deserving of elder status in our
6 community's eyes.
7 MS. KOBLISKI: Okay. Was Ms. Matthews
8 Lemieux's definition of our traditional knowledge
9 presented to all of the traditional elders of
10 Nelson House First Nation for debate and approval?
11 MR. THOMAS: This is, as I indicated,
12 a community derived process that we went through
13 to come up with a definition that is very broad in
14 nature. It is not Valerie Matthews Lemieux's
15 definition.
16 MS. KOBLISKI: Okay. How were the
17 people selected to represent the traditional
18 elders of Nelson House in the development of the
19 EIS?
20 MR. THOMAS: Sorry, I was distracted.
21 MS. KOBLISKI: How were the people
22 selected to represent the traditional elders of
23 Nelson House in the development of the EIS?
24 MR. THOMAS: There is a number of
25 people that come up and offer their expertise, and
6390
1 some are requested to come forward if they have
2 special knowledge and a willingness to share their
3 knowledge with us. It is not just done in a blind
4 fashion.
5 MS. KOBLISKI: Was there a notice put
6 up to call forward these elders to participate,
7 like in the community?
8 MR. THOMAS: No. As you are aware,
9 our traditions don't always involve the use of
10 written documentation the same way as
11 non-Aboriginal societies do, where everything is
12 put down on paper and everything is followed
13 according to certain rules and regulations that
14 are abided by. Sometimes we use our own
15 traditions to solicit responses from our
16 community. And we talk to people, we find out who
17 is considered to be an elder in the community, and
18 we approach those people and we ask them for their
19 input, along with other people talking to other
20 people in the community. It is pretty well an
21 open process.
22 MS. KOBLISKI: How many are there
23 actually that are considered traditional elders
24 that have gone through this process of the EIS?
25 MR. THOMAS: I don't have a specific
6391
1 number off the top of my head that I can quote
2 you, but we do have quite a few.
3 MS. KOBLISKI: The next question I am
4 going to ask is who are the eight Nelson House
5 elders and ten resource harvesters that were used
6 to develop the EIS, as reported to these hearings
7 on April 8th?
8 MR. THOMAS: I think some of the
9 questions that you are asking about are
10 confidential in nature. Like, we have to respect
11 some of the people that are involved with this,
12 and generally it is to protect our own people, our
13 own culture, and our own sacred areas and other
14 things that are important to us. And for those
15 reasons, we don't want to start naming
16 individuals. We are happy to provide the
17 information that we have acquired, but in terms of
18 identifying who is who, I think we have to
19 maintain respect for those who were willing to
20 share, because we did tell them that we would keep
21 things confidential from that perspective.
22 Because we are putting a lot of information
23 forward in a very public context, and we have to
24 make sure that we protect our sacred knowledge and
25 our sacred sites, and we do have to maintain
6392
1 confidentiality in those areas.
2 MR. OSLER: If I could just clarify
3 too, that the eight NCN elders and the ten NCN
4 resource harvesters referred to were part of NCN's
5 own traditional knowledge study, which has not
6 been part of the filings, it was done separately,
7 to collect information and knowledge. So it would
8 be a misunderstanding to think that was a core
9 piece of information going to the EIS itself, it
10 was a parallel activity being done, just for the
11 record.
12 MS. KOBLISKI: Did all of the
13 traditional elders of Nelson House have approval
14 of what traditional knowledge will be included in
15 the EIS, and what process was followed to include
16 and exclude information? Who reviewed and debated
17 the information and made the final decisions?
18 MR. THOMAS: I think I answered that
19 question already.
20 MS. KOBLISKI: Okay. On April 8, 2004
21 transcripts, Darcy Linklater and Jimmy D. Spence
22 were identified as two elders used for the
23 traditional knowledge for the EIS. Will they come
24 up here, or to others that were involved to answer
25 our questions as to how they were involved in the
6393
1 process and how the above definitions were arrived
2 at, and how it was applied in the EIS?
3 THE CHAIRMAN: I think Mr. Osler gave
4 you some of that answer. Maybe you want to
5 respond further, I don't know.
6 MR. THOMAS: With regard to Darcy and
7 Jimmy D., when we do have the general band meeting
8 with the focus on Wuskwatim, they will be
9 available to answer questions from NCN members.
10 MR. OSLER: For the record too, when
11 the Commission was in Nelson House in February of
12 2002 with its meetings, I know that they, NCN
13 presented to the Commission its definition at that
14 time of traditional knowledge, and I believe it
15 was Councillor Darcy Linklater who did it, because
16 he was the chief person in the team we were
17 dealing with in dealing with traditional knowledge
18 and dealing with those concerns. So it is not --
19 it was presented fully in the community at that
20 time, way back then, in the meeting that the
21 Commission held, the public meeting in the
22 community in February of 2002.
23 As the Chairman says, I have
24 described at some length the involvement --
25 Mr. Jimmy D. Spence, I think he did testify or
6394
1 gave evidence to the Commission when you were in
2 The Pas on some of his background in particular.
3 He has been intimately involved in many of the
4 sessions. Many other people have been involved as
5 well. In review of the documents, these people
6 were actively involved, community consultants, and
7 Councillor Linklater, others were involved. When
8 we went through the personal, family and community
9 life section that deals with culture, they were
10 intimately involved. In fact, the document, that
11 section of the report was reviewed by NCN before
12 we would even release it to Hydro, because it
13 included information of sensitivities, and they
14 wanted to know what elements of that section NCN
15 was prepared to share, even with Hydro, let alone
16 the outside world. So there were a number of
17 people of that nature intimately involved in
18 reviewing the documentation as it pertained to
19 NCN.
20 MS. KOBLISKI: The other question that
21 I have for Elvis is, how many meetings were held
22 between NCN elders and Manitoba Hydro?
23 MR. THOMAS: We didn't arrange to have
24 meetings with elders per se and Hydro per se. We
25 have taken a community oriented focus where we
6395
1 didn't really distinguish between you are an
2 elder, you are a young person, you are a man, you
3 are a woman, whatever, we didn't utilize that
4 approach. We went to the community and we talked
5 to the community, and we have had all of the
6 information that has been handed out, and if you
7 have received some of it and read through it, you
8 will find that we have met with many different
9 members of our community. And sometimes we did
10 have specific focus group meetings where we wanted
11 to consult with particular groups of our
12 community, whether it is resource users or elders
13 in our community, and those were arranged locally
14 in our community, but not between them per se and
15 Hydro. So, I should say that quite a number of
16 elders have been attending some of our meetings,
17 and in that way that we've acquired their input.
18 MS. KOBLISKI: I just have one more
19 here. From my understanding, when Nelson House
20 Chief and Council and Manitoba Hydro met with
21 traditional elders, they all opposed the Wuskwatim
22 project. When Chief and Council and Manitoba
23 Hydro met with the elders at an elders meeting,
24 the elders said no to Chief and Council and
25 Manitoba Hydro on proceeding with the Wuskwatim
6396
1 project.
2 Elvis Thomas, respecting our
3 traditional ways and customs, do you agree with
4 the wishes of our people that under our
5 traditional ways, Nelson House Chief and Council
6 do not have a mandate to proceed with the
7 Wuskwatim project in a partnership with Manitoba
8 Hydro?
9 MR. THOMAS: I am not sure what kind
10 of traditional ways you are talking about. But in
11 terms of the way things are done in our community,
12 and have been done since the signing of the
13 treaties, we have had elections occur to determine
14 who the leaders are in the community. And whoever
15 the leaders are chosen to be through the election
16 process, they then have a mandate to govern the
17 community. And we, as Chief and Council, the
18 currently elected Chief and Council, have been
19 elected into office and we do have a mandate to
20 represent the people.
21 We do try to incorporate as much of
22 our traditions as possible into the way that we do
23 things, but we don't necessarily follow, I don't
24 know, these -- I am not quite sure how to say
25 it -- the traditional ways that you mentioned, I
6397
1 am not sure what they are, so I am having
2 difficulty grappling it.
3 MS. KOBLISKI: You are the one who
4 mentioned traditional knowledge and traditional
5 elders in the hearings here, and maybe you can
6 explain to us what you were trying to say to the
7 people?
8 MR. THOMAS: Well, we did put it into
9 the record, we put our definition forward, and it
10 is in the Commission's hands, and it is a public
11 document, and I believe that you have access to
12 it. You have also quoted from portions of it, so
13 you have it already.
14 MS. KOBLISKI: Okay. The other thing
15 that I would like to mention is, you talk about
16 traditional elders -- to receive a title like
17 that, you have to have the experience and wisdom
18 and knowledge to be given that title; is that
19 correct? Like have you -- like to call someone a
20 traditional elder in our community?
21 MR. THOMAS: Would you repeat that,
22 please?
23 MS. KOBLISKI: To be called a
24 traditional elder, you have to have the experience
25 to be called that, to be given that honour, as a
6398
1 title like that, as a traditional elder, you know,
2 in my mind I consider all of our elders to be
3 traditional elders, not just certain ones that are
4 hand picked for our community. When we talk about
5 respect, we should be respecting all of our
6 elders, not just certain ones.
7 MR. THOMAS: The term traditional
8 elder has been used over many years, and there are
9 certain people that are recognized as being gifted
10 with certain ways of being. And it is recognized
11 by the community, and they are respected and
12 honoured, depending on how they conduct
13 themselves. They have to conduct themselves
14 properly in order to have that status elder. It
15 just doesn't simply come upon you because you have
16 gotten old with age. It is earned, and it is
17 earned by living a way of life that people in the
18 community can see and can respect and honour. So,
19 those are the people that we try to have access
20 to. And it is sometimes difficult to
21 differentiate between who is an elder and who is
22 not, or who is a good elder and who is not.
23 Generally, I don't want to be in a position where
24 I am judging people. To say that I think you
25 qualify as an elder and you don't kind of thing, I
6399
1 don't want to be in that position as one of the
2 leaders. But I do respect all people and their
3 views, and I will take into consideration people's
4 views, whether they agree with mine or not. I
5 accept the fact that your group has opposing
6 opinions, and that is fine. We live in a
7 democratic society. But it is the will of the
8 majority that we have to follow, and the best
9 interests of the community has to be taken into
10 consideration in following that.
11 MS. KOBLISKI: Another thing that I
12 would like to mention is proper consultation with
13 our elders and our youth, and of all ages in our
14 community. When, in fact, we haven't had a band
15 meeting -- since you guys have been in office I
16 think we have had like only one. When you guys
17 were, you know, when you came in as leadership,
18 you stated your portfolios and that and that was
19 the last time. How can we have proper
20 consultation with the community when we haven't
21 met with our own leaders in a year and a half? I
22 know we have had proper consultation -- you are
23 stating this -- with the Future Development staff,
24 but I don't think so. Like I don't think like all
25 of the information is being given out to the
6400
1 people.
2 MR. THOMAS: The idea of having a
3 general band meeting does not restrict the future
4 development area from sharing and getting
5 information from the community. We have done that
6 in ways that have not been done in the past.
7 We've followed, like I said, a community driven
8 process. It is not just Chief and Council that
9 makes decisions on what to talk about and what not
10 to talk about kind of thing, it is the community.
11 We have had many different types of meetings, as I
12 indicated previously in our presentations. We
13 have had open houses, we have had meetings, we
14 have had workshops, we have had all kinds of
15 opinion surveys, we have had newsletters. We have
16 had many, numerous, even focus group meetings, to
17 talk to our people, to consult with our people, to
18 give them information, plus also to get
19 information from them. So we have embarked on a
20 consultation process with the community about this
21 Wuskwatim process and what we are trying to do
22 with it. Simply because it is not called the
23 general band meeting does not mean that
24 consultation is not occurring.
25 MS. KOBLISKI: I know you guys were in
6401
1 the process of calling a meeting on May 17th on
2 the Wuskwatim project with the people in the
3 community, and a lot of people were excited about
4 this meeting because it is going to be the first
5 one actually, to actually have an open discussion
6 with your whole community members, instead of
7 having little groups all over the community.
8 People were anticipating this meeting and then it
9 was postponed because of a funeral in our
10 community. We had asked when was the meeting
11 re-scheduled for, and we haven't really been given
12 an answer, and people are still waiting. I can
13 understand that the hearings are still going on
14 until June, June 10, and that is quite a long time
15 for our people to be waiting. It is going to be
16 going on to two years now, and I think that we
17 should have this meeting.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a question in
19 that?
20 MS. KOBLISKI: That is okay. The
21 question is, when will the meeting be, for this
22 Wuskwatim?
23 MR. THOMAS: That is something that is
24 not for the Commission to deal with, in my view,
25 it is an internal issue. But, generally, it is
6402
1 Chief and Council will come together and they have
2 a meeting to decide when is the next appropriate
3 time that a meeting can be scheduled. I don't
4 make that call myself, alone. Neither does the
5 Chief. We come together as a Chief and Council,
6 and if the quorum decides that it is going to be a
7 certain date, that is when it will be. I am told
8 that it will be some time in June, early June.
9 That is the best answer that I can offer at this
10 point.
11 MS. KOBLISKI: So this meeting will
12 basically just be on Wuskwatim?
13 MR. THOMAS: That is my understanding.
14 I personally didn't want it to be a general band
15 meeting per se, it was supposed to be a community
16 forum. But the rest of my colleagues decided that
17 it was going to be called a general band meeting
18 with the focus on Wuskwatim, and I have to respect
19 the quorum's decision.
20 MS. KOBLISKI: Are these Hydro
21 representatives going to be at this meeting?
22 MR. THOMAS: I have invited them to
23 participate for questions that are specific to
24 Hydro. I don't want to be speaking on behalf of
25 Hydro, because they are their own kind of entity
6403
1 and they have their own people that can speak to
2 issues that are raised. I am not sure exactly how
3 many will be coming, but, yes, Hydro will be
4 represented at the meeting.
5 MS. KOBLISKI: Will Valerie Matthews
6 Lemieux be at this meeting?
7 THE CHAIRMAN: We are getting into
8 detailed questions on how the NCN is going to
9 organize their meetings.
10 MS. KOBLISKI: I just wanted to get
11 confirmation from our leader as to who --
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Just say they will
13 invite her and see what happens.
14 MS. KOBLISKI: Thank you. I would
15 like to give it over to Nelson, he has a few
16 questions.
17 MR. HART: Good afternoon, my name is
18 Nelson Hart, I am the Reverend of the United
19 Church of Canada, I serve at Nelson House
20 community. I am one person who was asked by our
21 elders to participate in these hearings that was
22 held in Thompson and here in Winnipeg. So this is
23 my third time I have been here, and I am not going
24 to go through that bilingual stuff any more
25 because I don't think that you appreciate that, so
6404
1 I am just going to use the international language,
2 English.
3 Has the traditional culture,
4 historical, and archeological knowledge in the EIS
5 been translated in Cree for the elders of Nelson
6 House to review? If it has been translated, is it
7 available at the Nelson House band office for
8 anyone to access? That is the first one.
9 Then this one --
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Give him a chance to
11 answer before you go on.
12 MR. HART: That is my first question.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: The answer was yes.
14 MR. THOMAS: If you recall, Reverend,
15 in some Thompson there was a request from members
16 of Cross Lake to do presentations in Cree, and we
17 did honour that request, and there was a CD on the
18 EIS stuff and it was done, it was all translated
19 all in Cree, and that information will also be
20 available to our people.
21 MR. HART: So if it is translated into
22 Cree, will that be syllabics or Roman orthography?
23 MR. THOMAS: It has been done orally,
24 but there is some people who are happy with that
25 in that it does reflect the way we transmit
6405
1 knowledge or information, which is usually orally.
2 The use of the Roman orthography is somewhat
3 limited, even as well educated people, we have
4 difficulty understanding or following that way of
5 writing. And the syllabic writing system, which
6 is derived from a non-Aboriginal person, has been
7 introduced to our people and many of our elders
8 were taught that language?
9 MR. MAYER: I thought the question was
10 has it been translated into syllabics I thought
11 was what the question was?
12 MR. THOMAS: It hasn't proven useful
13 for us to do that.
14 MR. HART: So it is just an oral
15 translation.
16 With the recent discovery of a 6,500
17 year old Cree human skeleton at the Wuskwatim
18 Lake, will this traditional burial site and others
19 in the surrounding area be protected and
20 guaranteed not to be disturbed by the Wuskwatim
21 project?
22 MR. THOMAS: Those issues, Reverend,
23 are being addressed as the findings occur to see
24 what needs to be done. I believe that you have
25 been involved in some of the ceremonies pertaining
6406
1 to findings, and also the reinterment of the
2 remains of our ancestors, and that is something
3 that we are going to continue doing should
4 anything be found. And there has been a finding,
5 as you've indicated, and the proper procedures
6 will be followed in that regard.
7 MR. HART: In regard to the 6,500 year
8 old Cree human skeleton found at Wuskwatim, why
9 weren't the members of Nelson House informed about
10 this discovery by the archeologist? They usually
11 do? It was almost a year ago.
12 MR. DAVIES: The find was actually
13 discovered by a study team member who reported it
14 to Manitoba Heritage Resources Branch. Manitoba
15 Heritage Resources Branch contacted NCN with
16 regards to the proper burial procedures. And
17 through that, it is my understanding that the
18 community was advised of that find and later it
19 did become an article in the newspaper.
20 MR. HART: Who discovered the actual
21 remains?
22 MR. DAVIES: I believe that the person
23 that found it was named George Kroupa. He was
24 just walking and found it. He reported it,
25 because he wasn't an archeologist, he just saw it,
6407
1 he reported it to the appropriate authorities,
2 which was the Manitoba Heritage Resources Branch.
3 MR. HART: I see. So this discovery
4 wasn't made aware to the members of Nelson House
5 First Nation?
6 MR. DAVIES: The finding was made --
7 MR. HART: At the time of the
8 discovery?
9 MR. DAVIES: Actually, the people that
10 Mr. Kroupa was working with were NCN members.
11 Two-thirds of the study team that was working at
12 Wuskwatim Lake, primarily on the aquatic studies,
13 but were also involved in the heritage resource
14 studies, were NCN band members. So the band
15 members were aware of it because they were working
16 at the site with the study team members and
17 actually were part of the study team.
18 MR. THOMAS: And on Council's part we
19 have, my colleague, Darcy Linklater, who handles
20 these kind of situations, and he was involved in
21 it.
22 MR. HART: Then this 6,500 year old
23 human skeleton is to be returned to Nelson House
24 for reburial. I guess I have to take part in that
25 reburial doing my part, and I am inviting
6408
1 traditional people to participate in the reburial.
2 That has been, that is how we have been doing it
3 with these others human remains that have been
4 uncovered by the Churchill River Diversion -- it
5 is not hard to say Churchill River Diversion --
6 because with the Churchill River Diversion that
7 has been in operation since the '70s, we never
8 really knew where our ancestors were buried until
9 this project came into existence.
10 MR. DAVIES: A number of the burial
11 sites were identified by NCN members, both from
12 South Indian Lake and also from Nelson House. In
13 regards to the 6,500 year old person that was
14 found, the remains either have been returned or
15 are in the process of being returned to Nelson
16 House. And there is a protocol that has been
17 developed by NCN. The Heritage Resources Branch
18 follows and works with NCN to make sure that the
19 reinterment is done appropriately to Cree culture.
20 MR. HART: And this particular Cree
21 human skeleton that was found in Wuskwatim, how
22 soon will it be returned for proper reburial?
23 MR. DAVIES: The burial was actually
24 on the north bank of Burntwood River. As I said,
25 the remains will be returned for appropriate
6409
1 burial, again using the protocols established by
2 NCN, and Heritage Resources Branch will work with
3 them to make sure that the appropriate --
4 MR. HART: Sometime after break-up?
5 MR. DAVIES: Heritage Resources Branch
6 is responsible for that and they would have to
7 advise in regards to the timing.
8 MR. HART: Break-up is of course
9 between June 1st and October 30th, and then after
10 October 30th it freezes over. So sometime between
11 June 1st and October 30th, or November 1st. And
12 we expect that human remains to be back to its
13 original site, or back to our community where we
14 do some of the reburial of human remains that are
15 found within this area, starting from, all of the
16 way from South Indian Lake to Wuskwatim Lake. So
17 I am assuming that these human remains have to be
18 returned for proper burial to Nelson House.
19 MR. THOMAS: Again, I can't speak on
20 behalf of Heritage Resources Branch, but it is my
21 understanding that there is a very long standing
22 relationship between the branch and NCN, starting
23 back in the 1960s, and that they have developed
24 the appropriate protocols and follow those with
25 NCN for all reinterments.
6410
1 MR. HART: What assurance do we have
2 that other historic grave sites and remains around
3 the Wuskwatim project site won't be disturbed --
4 they won't be disturbed?
5 MR. DAVIES: There is ongoing erosion
6 that is occurring today, it has been in the past
7 since the Churchill River Diversion, there was
8 also natural erosion occurring prior to the
9 Churchill River Diversion, and some of the grave
10 sites that were located around the lake have been
11 eroding into the lake. The Heritage Resources
12 Branch in the past has worked with NCN to make
13 sure that, again, that the proper procedures are
14 in place for reinterment. As a result of this
15 project, we did mention earlier that there would
16 be accelerated erosion during the first five years
17 of the project, and Manitoba Hydro has provided
18 funding to Heritage Resources Branch to continue
19 their work along the shore of Wuskwatim Lake, to
20 make sure that if some of the sites are eroded,
21 that either the artifacts or the remains of people
22 are again properly handled.
23 MR. HART: We are not only concerned
24 about this historical discovery, but also recent
25 burials by our band members, at the site of
6411
1 Wuskwatim that have been buried there. What are
2 they going to do about those grave sites?
3 MR. DAVIES: There has been a lot of
4 work done with NCN elders to identify potential
5 grave sites that could be disturbed because of the
6 project to date. None have been identified.
7 There was one elder or more that in 2002 felt
8 there may be some graves at the current camp
9 location, and the archeologist went out in 2003
10 and did a thorough survey of the area, and did not
11 find any. They are going to go back again this
12 year to take another look at it, with the NCN
13 elders, again just to double check.
14 If at the time the project does take
15 place, if any remains are found during the removal
16 of the top layer of the soil, the project does
17 stop until those remains are properly removed, or
18 any artifacts are properly removed.
19 MR. HART: And who is protecting our
20 historical sites?
21 MR. DAVIES: In regards to historical
22 artifacts that were potentially affected by the
23 project, there were two main items that were
24 found. One was a log cabin, I believe it was
25 circa the early 1900s, and the second was what was
6412
1 felt to be way markers, and both of those items
2 have been removed from the sites that could be
3 affected by the project.
4 MR. HART: Elvis Thomas, how can you
5 say that traditional knowledge of Nelson House has
6 been incorporated into the EIS when at the only
7 meeting held between the elders and Manitoba Hydro
8 and your consultants, all the elders voiced their
9 strong opposition to the Wuskwatim project?
10 THE CHAIRMAN: That is the same
11 statement that was made by Ms. Kobliski a while
12 ago.
13 MS. KOBLISKI: I just have a few more
14 questions for Stuart, about the 6,500 year old
15 remains that were found at Wuskwatim. From my
16 understanding, our people didn't even know about
17 this discovery until they read it in the paper.
18 Like, from my understanding, there are more grave
19 sites there, around that area, and like what
20 Nelson was asking, are these grave sites going to
21 be disturbed? Are they going to be dug up and
22 reburied somewhere else?
23 MR. DAVIES: First of all, as I said
24 before, there were NCN members working with the
25 study team when the find was made, and NCN members
6413
1 were aware that the remains had been found. In
2 addition to that, in 2002 Heritage Resources
3 Branch did officially contact NCN and let them
4 know that the remains had been found. So there
5 definitely was knowledge in the community that it
6 occurred.
7 MS. KOBLISKI: But, I mean, the ones
8 that are still out there, the other grave sites
9 that are still out in Wuskwatim, are they going to
10 be dug up and reburied somewhere else?
11 THE CHAIRMAN: The answer that was
12 provided is that none were identified at this
13 point, but work will continue.
14 MS. KOBLISKI: Because the way I see
15 it, if our traditional elders were to be asked
16 that question, you know, with respect to our
17 community, they wouldn't approve of that. They
18 wouldn't approve of Manitoba Hydro or any
19 archeologist digging up our ancestral remains and
20 reburying them somewhere else. That is a
21 historical site in our eyes already, that area,
22 and that is something that shouldn't be touched,
23 it should be left alone. Because if it was in
24 your land, and if it had something to do with your
25 ancestors, and there was a finding like that, I
6414
1 think you would feel the same way.
2 MR. DAVIES: I am not sure if there
3 was a question there.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: There wasn't.
5 MS. KOBLISKI: Joshua would like to
6 ask a few things of Elvis, I think, and then we
7 are done.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Flett,
9 you have some questions?
10 MS. KOBLISKI: Joshua is one of our
11 elders from Nelson House, and he has lived off the
12 land all of his life. He is considered a
13 traditional elder, and he is highly respected in
14 our community.
15 ELDER FLETT: My name is Joshua Flett
16 from Nelson House. (Speaking Cree.)
17 MR. HART: Joshua stated he is 71
18 years old and has been on the land ever since, and
19 it was good.
20 This is another important reminder
21 that we have been using the land, and now the
22 white man has destroyed that way of life, and then
23 the Queen had promised to look after the people as
24 long as the rivers flow, the grass grows, and she
25 also pointed to the sun, that is how long they are
6415
1 going to look after the people.
2 ELDER FLETT: (Speaking Cree)
3 MR. HART: He said that he finds
4 himself in a difficult position, in a hole. And
5 then the water, we can't use our water, it is
6 contaminated. And then we are inside this hole
7 and we are afraid that the dam might burst and all
8 of us might be under that, under water.
9 ELDER FLETT: (Speaking Cree.)
10 MR. HART: He said in Nelson House,
11 the water that we drink comes from the debris that
12 is floating by, and it may also be human remains
13 that flow by Nelson House. And then there is a
14 sewage, that intake into the lake, right where the
15 pumphouse is, and that is, this is the water that
16 we drink, even though it is treated. He said this
17 is what I don't like.
18 ELDER FLETT: (Speaking Cree.)
19 MR. HART: He said that all of the
20 debris that is going into the reservoir at Nelson
21 House, in our lake, Footprint Lake, all of that
22 stuff that is going into our lake, and then he
23 said I don't want to approve of the building of
24 another dam because there is nothing set for our
25 children. He said this is what I don't like.
6416
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I will intervene
2 here. Reverend Hart, would you advise Elder Flett
3 that this is the time that I let him make some
4 statements, but as a preamble, he has to ask
5 questions.
6 ELDER FLETT: (Speaking Cree.)
7 MR. HART: He said a lot of things are
8 very difficult for our people, because there are
9 many issues that our Chief have brought here that
10 we weren't aware of.
11 ELDER FLETT: (Speaking Cree.)
12 MR. HART: Everything sort of is done
13 in the dark, but nobody can do anything in the
14 dark, because we eventually see events.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Flett.
16 We will discontinue this at this point. Mr. Flett
17 should be advised also that there will be
18 opportunities, from what I hear just a while ago,
19 in Nelson House to receive additional information
20 on this project. We thank you for your comments.
21 ELDER FLETT: (Speaking Cree.)
22 MR. THOMAS: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I
23 am just going to respond in Cree to the elder.
24 (Speaking Cree.)
25 ELDER FLETT: (Speaking Cree.)
6417
1 MS. KOBLISKI: Elvis, I have one more
2 question for you. If these discoveries were
3 found, these remains that are 6,500 years old, and
4 it is a historical finding, then wouldn't the
5 Wuskwatim area be a historical site?
6 MR. DAVIES: First of all, the finding
7 was on the north side of the Burntwood River, not
8 actually at the Wuskwatim Lake itself.
9 MS. KOBLISKI: A lot of our elders are
10 saying there is a lot of grave sites at the
11 Wuskwatim area, maybe they are not just meant for
12 you guys to find, but there are some there. Like,
13 I am asking, would that be considered a historical
14 site, a historical area, if there are remains
15 found there?
16 MR. DAVIES: I believe there are
17 remains found along all of the waterways from
18 South Indian Lake right through the entire system
19 past Split Lake. And because of the erosion that
20 is taking place along the river banks, a lot of
21 the burial sites that are close to the edge of the
22 water are being exposed. And in a number of areas
23 it is being handled again by Manitoba Heritage
24 Resources Branch, which is part of its mandate.
25 MS. KOBLISKI: You didn't really
6418
1 answer my question. Would it be considered a
2 historical site, the area? Even if there is
3 erosion happening, there is still remains
4 elsewhere up on higher ground, would it be
5 considered a historical site?
6 MR. DAVIES: That is something that
7 would have to be answered by Heritage Resources
8 Branch. But, again, historical sites, perhaps not
9 of that age, but there are burial sites that occur
10 throughout all of the system. The Cree people
11 have been there, as you know, for at least 6,500
12 years, and some of the Cree members say forever,
13 so there are sites throughout the entire system of
14 that age and more.
15 MS. KOBLISKI: I know there is a
16 dancing circle in that area; right, Elvis? Isn't
17 that considered a historical site?
18 MR. THOMAS: Whether it is considered
19 a historical site or not by Heritage Resource is
20 it, is that what it is called, or some entity of
21 the Provincial Government or Federal Government,
22 is different from what we may consider as
23 historical to us as NCN people. And, yes, we
24 definitely look at it as, we look at it as a
25 sacred site, not necessarily historical, even
6419
1 though it has been around for a long time. It
2 possibly could be considered historical from our
3 perspective as NCN. And we have made every effort
4 to ensure that we have involved our people in our
5 process to make sure that we also have people who
6 are knowledgeable about that area. Jimmy D. was
7 mentioned previously. He was actually born there,
8 his birth certificate states that he was born at
9 Beaver Dam. And he and many of the other families
10 that have lived there have advised us, this is
11 where we think things are that are of importance,
12 including possible grave sites. And if any are
13 discovered, we will have to look at that issue and
14 see what needs to be done. If the area can be
15 protected, then we certainly want to make sure
16 that that is done.
17 We have done that with the dancing
18 circle. We have made sure there is not going to
19 be impact in that particular area. By making sure
20 that our people are involved in the process, we
21 make sure that impacts to our special sites can be
22 eliminated.
23 And if the erosion occurs where new
24 grave sites are going to be found, then we are
25 going to have to try and figure out what we are
6420
1 going to do as a community to address that issue.
2 MS. KOBLISKI: That is what I was
3 going to ask. Like, if you are going to ask the
4 community for their consent to move these bodies
5 and rebury them somewhere else, where do you plan
6 on reburying them? Because I remembered
7 Ms. Matthew Lemieux mentioning there was a special
8 grave site in Nelson House. Where is that?
9 MR. THOMAS: The Reverend would be the
10 person who would be the most appropriate person,
11 and Councillor Darcy Linklater, to answer that
12 question.
13 MS. KOBLISKI: You don't know where
14 this special grave site is?
15 MR. THOMAS: I myself don't know that.
16 MS. KOBLISKI: How does Ms. Matthew
17 Lemieux know?
18 MR. THOMAS: Probably because she
19 talks to Darcy Linklater and others.
20 MS. KOBLISKI: She knows more than we
21 do in our community.
22 MR. HART: (13 LINES EXCISED FROM TRANSCRIPT
23 AT THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION)
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
25 MS. KOBLISKI: Just one more for
6421
1 Elvis. If there is a reburial for all of these
2 other remains that were found around the Wuskwatim
3 area, are you going to call all of the community
4 members together to make that decision, as to
5 where they will be reburied, or even to be dug up?
6 MR. THOMAS: The protocols that are in
7 place are the ones that are currently followed,
8 and this is something that was done before my
9 time. And no one has come forward from our
10 community, that I know of anyway, maybe they have
11 approached others, but I don't know, and it
12 appears to me that it has been accepted as the way
13 to do things. And if there is to be a change to
14 that, I would like to hear from other community
15 members. But the Reverend, and also my colleague
16 Darcy Linklater, and others in the community, are
17 aware of this, and many of our community members
18 are also aware that this is how things have been
19 done. And to change things, I need to hear from
20 more of our community members.
21 MS. KOBLISKI: Thank you.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
23 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, there is
24 some exhibit numbers that we need to assign before
25 you adjourn.
6422
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Your witnesses, Mr.
2 Troniak.
3 MR. MAYER: You are not making
4 presentations now, you are asking questions?
5 MR. TRONIAK: That is my
6 understanding, these are questions that Mr. Moore
7 has.
8 MR. MOORE: My name is Frank Moore
9 from Nelson House. I am 73. (Speaking Cree.)
10 MR. THOMAS: The elder is asking me a
11 question about when I got all of my people
12 together to get authorization to come and sit in
13 this kind of forum. I am not sure whether that is
14 relevant or not, but if I may provide a quick
15 response in Cree?
16 THE CHAIRMAN: You may.
17 MR. THOMAS: (Speaking Cree.)
18 MR. MOORE: (Speaking Cree.)
19 MR. THOMAS: He is making comments
20 about, he doesn't see how things are beneficial to
21 himself and also to other NCN people with respect
22 to what Hydro has done, and he offers his own
23 personal opinions about such matters. I can
24 answer them, but I believe that the better forum
25 for answering those kind of questions would be in
6423
1 Nelson House when we have our meeting.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Please provide that
3 answer.
4 MR. THOMAS: I will advise him
5 accordingly. (Speaking Cree.)
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
7 MR. TRONIAK: I believe that is all of
8 our questions.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much,
10 Mr. Troniak, and all of the members of the
11 Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake.
12 Mr. Grewar.
13 MR. GREWAR: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just
14 before you adjourn, if that is your intent for
15 this evening, there was quite a number of exhibits
16 that we need to assign numbers to. The first is a
17 document that was referred to only a few moments
18 ago during the cross-examination. This was
19 submitted by Hydro at the very end of the
20 proceedings a week and a half ago or so, and it is
21 the response to the Manitoba Clean Environment
22 Commission's request for a comparison of the
23 agreement concerning a new relationship, 2002,
24 between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of
25 Quebec, and the Wuskwatim project summary of
6424
1 understandings, 2003, between Nisichawayasihk Cree
2 Nation and Manitoba Hydro, which was prepared for
3 May 14, 2004. We should assign it as exhibit
4 MH/NCN 1041. And Mr. Chairman, I believe you
5 received copies of that earlier today.
6 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN 1041: Response to
7 Manitoba Clean Environment
8 Commission's request for comparison of
9 the agreement re new relationship,
10 2002, between Government of Quebec and
11 the Cree of Quebec, and Wuskwatim
12 project understandings, 2003, between
13 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation and
14 Manitoba Hydro, May 14, 2004)
15
16 MR. GREWAR: The other exhibits were
17 received during the adjournment. Two are from the
18 Canadian Nature Federation. One is in response to
19 CNF undertaking number 61, and it is entitled
20 "Manufacturing Commercial Scale Wind Turbines in
21 Canada," a report by the Canadian Wind Energy
22 Association. It is CNF undertaking 61, and it is
23 assigned exhibit number CNF 1024.
24
25 (EXHIBIT CNF 1024: Response to
6425
1 undertaking 61, Manufacturing
2 Commercial Scale Wind Turbines in
3 Canada, by Canadian Wind Energy
4 Association)
5
6 MR. GREWAR: After that we received
7 CNF undertaking number 60, which is "The Economics
8 of Wind Energy" from the American Wind Energy
9 Association. It is assigned exhibit CNF 1025.
10
11 (EXHIBIT CNF 1025: Response to
12 undertaking 60, The Economics of Wind
13 Energy from American Wind Energy
14 Association)
15
16 MR. GREWAR: We have two exhibits,
17 three exhibits, I believe -- two exhibits from the
18 Manitoba Metis Federation. The first would be
19 "Summary of Results from Wuskwatim Workshops." It
20 was in response to a request that occurred during
21 their presentation, and it is MMF 1001.
22
23
24 (EXHIBIT MMF 1001: Summary of Results
25 from Wuskwatim Workshops)
6426
1
2 MR. GREWAR: And we have as exhibit
3 number MMF 1002, the response to CEC
4 interrogatories, CEC/MMF/EIS interrogatories
5 number 1 to 7, and that would be MMF 1002, the
6 exhibit number.
7
8
9 (EXHIBIT MMF 1002: Response to CEC
10 interrogatories, CEC/MMF/EIS
11 interrogatories number 1 to 7)
12
13 MR. GREWAR: The final two,
14 Mr. Chairman, are exhibits filed by TREE in
15 response to undertakings number 84 and 85, so
16 TREE/RCM, and they are as follows: Response to
17 undertaking number 84 is Wuskwatim Advancement of
18 Adjustment Basic Forecast, TREE/RCM 1008,
19 undertaking 84.
20 (EXHIBIT TREE/RCM 1009: Response to
21 undertaking 84, Wuskwatim Advancement
22 of Adjustment Basic Forecast)
23
24 MR. GREWAR: And undertaking 85 of
25 TREE/RCM is Wuskwatim Advancement with Adjusted
6427
1 Basic Forecast with 400 Gigawatt Hour Revision,
2 and that is TREE/RCM 1009. Thank you,
3 Mr. Chairman, those are the exhibits that are due.
4
5 (EXHIBIT TREE/RCM 1010: Response to
6 undertaking 85, Wuskwatim Advancement
7 with Adjusted Basic Forecast with 400
8 Gigawatt Hour Revision)
9
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
11 Ms. Matthews Lemieux?
12 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Yes, I have
13 just been asked to raise a concern about the
14 disclosure of the sacred burial site, and I am not
15 sure what can be done now, because it is on the
16 record, but there certainly are concerns that have
17 been expressed to me by some of the elders and
18 other members of council sitting in the room. And
19 I would like that noted on the record. I am not
20 sure if that portion of it can be in some fashion
21 expunged now.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe we can have
23 that -- I don't know if that is possible, Mr.
24 Grewar, to have that struck from the record?
25 It is not an answer I have readily for you,
6428
1 Mr. Chairman. I don't know what the protocol or
2 appropriateness of taking it out of the record at
3 this point would be. It would presumably be at
4 the direction of the Commission, with all of the
5 parties agreeing that a section of the transcript
6 may be --
7 THE CHAIRMAN: We will look forward to
8 that. Ms. Avery Kinew will make a comment.
9 MS. AVERY KINEW: I won't be long, I
10 just want to say something that may not be
11 appropriate, but I would wish to apologize to the
12 people of Nisichawayasihk. It has been such a
13 cross cultural conflict today, and I was
14 profoundly disappointed by Mr. Davies -- I am
15 sorry, for saying it is any decision by Manitoba
16 Heritage Resources about what is a historical
17 site, when it is definitely an indigenous person
18 who was buried there a long time ago. I wish the
19 people of Nisichawayasihk to understand that we
20 have been commissioned to do a job, and we are
21 trying to do it. And it is not an appropriate
22 forum for what you want to find out. But perhaps
23 some of the information that comes out is
24 appropriate.
25 I would like, even though it is not
6429
1 politically correct, but commend your Councillor
2 Thomas, because he did answer that question about
3 a historical site appropriately. It is up to your
4 people. And I think if you request something such
5 as that site location be stricken from the record,
6 then it is entirely appropriate that we should try
7 and do something that is culturally respectful to
8 your people.
9 Finally, the questions from the elder,
10 I understand how difficult it is that this is not
11 an appropriate place, but I hope you bear with us,
12 we will soon be finished, and we will try and be
13 respectful to all of the submissions that have
14 been made.
15 MR. BRUYERE: I am Carolyn Bruyere,
16 elder of Sagkeeng.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, there is no
18 opportunity at this point to ask questions.
19 MR. BRUYERE: I think this is
20 important enough to ask.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: We are not finished
22 with the EIS, and I understand that some of you
23 have had the opportunity, Ms. Kobliski just had
24 her opportunity to ask questions, and I think you
25 have had opportunity to ask questions.
6430
1 MR. BRUYERE: I didn't ask any
2 questions today.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Not today. You don't
4 get an opportunity to ask questions every day.
5 MR. BRUYERE: But this one arose from
6 today.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot do
8 that, because then I open this to everybody to
9 come and ask questions today.
10 MR. BRUYERE: The amount we are
11 spending time already, I would have got my answer.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I will make an
13 exception, and I hope this is not leading in to --
14 but you ask that one question.
15 MR. BRUYERE: I appreciate it very
16 much, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
17 A young man today told me that he is
18 very ill in his stomach and he was told that he
19 has pylori. I would like to know if Elvis Thomas
20 is aware that apparently pylori is rampant in the
21 community, and I would like to know if the Hydro
22 panel and the EIS is prepared to do something
23 about this, and see where it is coming from? That
24 is two questions, I guess. Thank you very much,
25 Mr. Mayer.
6431
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have a comment
2 to make, Mr. Thomas?
3 MR. THOMAS: It is a health concern,
4 and I think it can be addressed through the First
5 Nations Inuit Health Branch to solicit them to
6 explore where it is coming from. I have had
7 treatment as well for that kind of stuff, so it is
8 a concern. Whether it is rampant or not, I don't
9 know, but certainly the Health people from Canada
10 will have to be approached to explore this issue.
11 MR. BRUYERE: Would you look into it,
12 please?
13 MR. THOMAS: I beg your pardon?
14 MR. BRUYERE: Would you look into it,
15 please?
16 MR. THOMAS: We will be, yes.
17 MR. BRUYERE: Thank you.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Davies, you wanted
19 to add something?
20 MR. DAVIES: I just wanted to
21 acknowledge the Commissioner's comments. While
22 the Heritage Resources Branch does have the
23 mandate to determine whether it is a heritage
24 resource site or a historic site, she is correct
25 that it is the NCN people that would determine
6432
1 whether it is an important and historic site. And
2 if I gave the wrong impression and offended
3 anyone, I apologize.
4 MS. KOBLISKI: I would like to make
5 one more comment.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: No, no more comments.
7 MS. KOBLISKI: Please? It is just
8 about what the Councillor had asked.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, no. I will
10 ask that -- I will at this time call the
11 adjournment of the meeting. And you might get
12 other opportunities to ask questions, but not
13 here.
14 MS. KOBLISKI: They shouldn't take it
15 off the record, they should just leave it there.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: You are referring to
17 the comments we made on sort of a point of order
18 in regards to the record?
19 MS. KOBLISKI: No, I mean what
20 Ms. Matthew Lemieux was asking about it not being
21 on the record, about the grave sites, the
22 historical.
23 MR. MAYER: We are going to make a
24 decision on that.
25 MS. KOBLISKI: Okay.
6433
1
2 (ADJOURNED AT 6:15 P.M.)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6434
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14